http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: KANSHI RAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: OM PRAKASH JAWAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/04/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (4) 593        JT 1996 (4)   733  1996 SCALE  (4)194

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and order  dated April 18, 1995 of the Delhi High Court made in RFA No.217/72. The admitted position is that an agreement of sale  dated April  7, 1969  was executed  to  convey  the property on  the plot  of land  admeasuring 100 square yards situated in  Dayanand Colony,  Lajpat Nagar,  New Delhi  for Rs.16,000/- and  Rs.2,500/- was  paid as  earnest money. The respondent filed  the suit on July 13, 1970 for the specific performance if the agreement and also claimed, alternatively damages for  a sum  of Rs.  12,00/-  with  interest  payable thereon. The  courts  below  have  granted  the  decree  for specific performance. Thus this appeal by special leave.      The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  fairly contended that  specific  performance  of  the  contract  is within the  discretion of  the Court  and is not a matter of course. The   courts  in granting  the decree  for  specific performance  should   exercise  the   discretion  on   sound principles of law. In the event of working out the equities, the courts  would in  an appropriate case, grant alternative relief,  stead   of  granting   the  decree   for   specific performance. In support thereof, he sought to place reliance on the  judgment of  this Court  in S.Rangaraju  Nidu v.  S. Thiruvarakkarasu [AIR  1995 SC  1769]. He contended that the appellant  is   prepared  to   pay  a  sum  Rs.10  lakhs  as alternative   relief;    though   the   respondent   claimed Rs.12,000/- instead of granting specific performance at this distance of  time which  word  be  unjust,  inequitable  and unfair.      It is  contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the  respondent had  secured balance  honey and  he was always ready did willing to perform his part of the contract which inding  was affirmed  by both  the courts  below;  the appellant  had   avoided  execution   of  the  sale    deed;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

therefore, the courts below have rightly granted the decree; and there  is no  justification for  interference  with  the decree granted by the courts below.      Having regards  to the  facts  of  this  case  and  the arguments addressed  by the  learned counsel,  the  question that arises  for consideration is: whether it would be just, fair  and   equitable  to  grant  the  decree  for  specific performance? It  is true  that the  rise in  prices  of  the property during the pendency of the suit may not be the sole consideration for  refusing to  decree the suit for specific performance. But  it is  equally settled  law that  granting decree for  specific performance  of a contract of immovable property is  not automatic.  It is  one of  discretion to be exercised on  sound principles.  When the  court  gets  into equity jurisdiction,  it would be guided by justice, equity, good conscience and fairness to both the parties. Considered from  this  perspective,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the respondent  himself   had  claimed  alternative  relief  for damages, we  think that  the courts  would  have  been  well justified  in   granting  alternative  decree  for  damages, instead of  ordering specific  performance  which  would  be unrealistic and  unfair. Under  these circumstances, we hold that the  decree for specific performance is inequitable and unjust to the appellant.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed. The appellant shall not again  sell the property for five years. The respondents will be  paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs within a period of three months from to-day. In case the respondents avoid receipt of the amount  within the  stipulated time, it would be open to the appellant  to deposit  the same  to the  credit  of  the plaintiff in the trial Court. In case of default, the decree would stand confirmed. No costs.