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

PETITIONER: REVAPPA GURUSIDDAPPA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THAKUBAI MADHAVARAO PATIL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/09/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      This special  leave petition has been filed against the remand order  of the  High Court  of Karnataka made on March 25, 1996  in R.S.A. No.196/90. The admitted position is that the first  respondent had entered into an agreement on March 11, 1983  to purchase  3 acres  28 gunthas   of  land for  a consideration of  Rs.12,000/- and   he  paid Rs.  2000/-  as earnest money. The petitioner-second defendant purchased the self-same property  on July  8, 1983  for a consideration of Rs. 6000/-  and had  the sale  deed  registered.  The  first respondent filed  the suit  for  specific  performance.  The trial Court  finding that  the petitioner  had purchased the property and  it would  cause irreparable  damage to  him if decree for  specific performance being would be granted, had directed refund  of the  earnest money  with  interest.  The first respondent carried the matter in appeal. The appellate Court set aside the decree of the trial Court on the finding that the  petitioner had not pleaded that he was a bona fide purchaser for  value without  notice of  the prior agreement of sale.  It also  had held that the refusal to grant relief of specific performance on that ground was not valid in law. Accordingly, it  reversed the  decree of the trial Court and granted specific performance. In the second appeal, the High Court while upholding the pleading of the respondent that he was ready  and willing  to perform his part of the agreement and willing to perform his part of the agreement and that he had led  the evidence in that behalf, remitted the matter to the district  Court to  frame an  issue on  the basis  of  a previous judgment  and the issue in this behalf was required to be  settled. We  need not  go into the correctness of the remand order  since the  first respondent  has not filed any SLP against  that  order.  Suffice  it  to  state  that  the petitioner has  no cause  for grievance  in this  matter for remanding the  matter. In  view of  the finding  that he  is subsequent purchaser,  as found  by the  trial Court itself, and that the High Court has remitted the matter to frame the

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

issue whether  the first respondent was ready and willing to perform his  part of  the contract  and decide the matter on the basis of the evidence already on record, we do not think that there  is any  error of law committed by the High Court in remitting the matter.      The SLP is accordingly dismissed.