10 May 1996
Supreme Court
Download

SUKHBIR SINGH Vs BRIJ PAL SINGH

Bench: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
Case number: SLP(C) No.-011140-011140 / 1996
Diary number: 64035 / 1996
Advocates: MANOJ SWARUP AND CO. Vs


1

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

PETITIONER: SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BRIJ PAL SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/05/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This special  leave petition  arises from  the order of the Allahabad  High Court  dated April  1,  1996  passed  in S.A.No. 680 of 1995.      The first petitioner is a purchaser from the respondent of the  land under registered sale deed dated March 10, 1975 with a  contemporaneous agreement  of  reconveyance  to  the respondent within  a period of two years from the said date. The first  respondent laid  suit  for  specific  performance pleading that  despite his  readiness  and  willingness  the petitioner had  avoided to  sell  back  the  property.    he pleaded that  despite his making several requests to execute the  sale   deed  on   receiving  sale   consideration,  the petitioner went  on assuring  to do  the same  but failed to execute the sale deed.  Ultimately, when the petitioners had agreed to  have the sale deed executed and get it registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Muzaffarnagar on March 9, 1997,  the respondents  kept waiting on that date for the petitioners to  come and  execute  the  sale  deed  but  the petitioners did not turn up.  On an application moved by the respondents of their presence, the Sub-Registrar had entered their attendance  in his  office register  on March 9, 1997. Though the respondents tried to reach out the petitioners on March 10,  1997 the  petitioners  intentionally  avoided  to execute the  sale deed in their favour.  Consequently, their efforts to  have the  property reconveyed  failed.  So, they laid the  suit for  specific performance  of the  agreement. The  petitioners  pleaded  that  though  they  had  executed agreement of reconveyance, the same was cancelled by another agreement dated  June 4,  1975, Ex.  A-1.  They also pleaded that they were always ready and willing to perform their par of the  agreement.   The respondents did not have sufficient means to  pay the  sale consideration of Rs. 47,6000/-.  The respondents  filed   the  suit   only   to   blackmail   the petitioners. After  framing appropriate issues, adduction of evidence and  on   consideration thereof,  the  trial  Court dismissed the  suit holding  that the respondents had failed to prove  that they wee willing to perform their part of the contract nor  have they enough funds to repurchase the lands in dispute.  But on appeal, the additional District Judge in

2

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

C.A.No.72/1992 allowed  and decreed the suit on May 22, 1995 and decreed  the suit  and the  second  appeal  came  to  be dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order.      Shri Manoj  Swarup, learned  counsel for the petitioner contended that  the suit  is not in conformity with Forms 47 and 48  of Appendix AA of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) as amended  by the High Court of Allahabad.  The respondents have not  pleaded, as  enjoined in Section 16 (1) (c) of the Specified Reliefs  Act, 1963  (for short, the "Act) that the respondents had  ready  money  for  getting  the  sale  deed executed.   The decrees of the appellate Court as well as of the High Court are, therefore, bad in law.  We find no force in the contentions.      In paragraph  5,9 and  10 of the plaint the respondents have in  substance pleaded that they had been and were still willing to  perform their  part of  the  agreement  and  the defendants did  have notice in that behalf.  It is seen that averments made  in the  above paragraphs are in substance as per Forms 47 and 48 prescribed in Appendix AA of the Code as amended by  the High  Court.  What requires to be considered is whether  the essential facts constituting the ingredients in Section 16 (1) (c) of the Act were pleaded and that found mentioned in  the said  Forms do in substance point to those facts.   The procedure  is the  hand-maid to the substantive rights of  the parties. it would, therefore, be clear from a perusal of  the pleadings  and the  forms that the averments are consistent  with the  Forms.   When the  respondents had pleaded and proved by the by the Sub-Registrar’s endorsement as per  paper No.41/C  that the  respondents were present in the office  of the  Sub-Registrar for  having the  sale deed executed and  registered by  the petitioners,  it  would  be explicit that  the respondents  were ready  and  willing  to perform their  part of  the agreement.,   The facts that the petitioners did not attend the office would prove positively that the petitioners had avoided execution of the sale deed.      Law is  not in doubt and it is not a condition that the respondents should have ready cash with them.  The fact they attended the  Sub-Registrar’s office  to have  the sale deed executed and waited for the petitioners to attend the office of the  Sub-Registrar is  a positive fact to prove that they had necessary  funds to  pass on  consideration and had with them the  needed money  with them for payment at the time of registration.   it is  sufficient  for  the  respondents  to establish that  they  had  the  capacity  to  pay  the  sale consideration.    it  is  not  necessary  to  pay  the  sale consideration.   It is not necessary that they should always carry the  money with  them from  the date  of the suit till date of  the decree.  It would, therefore, be clear that the courts below  have appropriately  exercised their discretion for granting  the relief  of  specific  performance  to  the respondents on sound principles of law.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.