Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2011 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 1293 - SUPREME COURTExecution of the sale deed - time for payment '' essence'' of the contract - HELD THAT:- considering the facts of the case, We are of the view that the failure of the appellant to pay the balance and failure to pay the last instalment clearly amounted to breach and time for such payment was the essence of the contract, the respondents were justified in determining the agreement of sale which they did by notice. Therefore rejection of the prayer for specific performance is upheld. dismissal of the suit for injunction - HELD THAT:- The appellant was not put in possession of the suit properties in part-performance of the agreement of sale. Under clause 15 of the agreement of sale, she was only entrusted with the suit schedule properties as a caretaker until possession is given on receipt of the entire sale consideration. As neither the entire sale consideration was paid nor possession delivered, the plaintiff remained merely a caretaker and on cancellation of the agreement of sale by the respondents, the plaintiff became liable to leave the suit schedule properties as the possession continued to be with the defendants. We have held that the cancellation of agreement was justified and upheld the rejection of the suit for specific performance. In the circumstances, the dismissal of the suit for injunction by the learned Single Judge, affirmed by the Division Bench, is also not open to challenge. Dismissal of the suit for recovery - HELD THAT:- the liability to refund the advance has nothing to do with the appointment of the plaintiff as caretaker or the obligation of the plaintiff to return the property on cancellation of the agreement. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the rate of interest shall be increased to 12% per annum instead of 9% per annum. that In the High Court the learned counsel for the appellant during arguments clearly stated that the appellant was not pressing for any decree against the fourth respondent in view of the finding that the amount paid was part of the consideration for movables. Therefore the dismissal of suit for ₹ 1,25,000 is also upheld. We also find no reason to interfere with the dismissal of the suit. That the evidence of the fourth defendant (examined as DW2) was sufficient to put forth the case of the defendants and there was no need to examine the other three defendants who did not have full or complete knowledge of the transactions. In the circumstances we find no merit in the contention that the suits ought to have been decreed, as defendants 1,2 and 3 did not step into the witness box. Contempt Petition - This Court while granting leave in the special leave petitions, made an interim order that the respondent shall not encumber the property in any manner. HELD THAT:- Receiving advances or amounts in pursuance of an MOU would not also amount to creating an encumbrance. The MOUs said to have been executed by respondents 1 to 3 provide that agreements of sale with mutually agreed terms and conditions will be entered between the parties after clearance of all pending or future litigations. Therefore the MOUs are not even agreements of sale. In these circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the respondents have created any encumbrances or violated the order. Hence, these contempt petitions are liable to be rejected. Relief of specific performance - agreement of sale was cancelled - we have affirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had filed false, frivolous and mischievous suits. In view of the above, in terms of the agreement and in terms of its offer, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amounts paid by her. A sum of ₹ 2,25,000 was paid under the agreement of sale to defendants 1 to 3. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the sum of ₹ 1,25,000 paid by the plaintiff to the fourth defendant was also the consideration for the movables in addition to the consideration of ₹ 3,75,000 under the agreement of sale, was not been challenged by the defendants. In the circumstances, the Division Bench was justified in granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff for ₹ 3,50,000 with interest. These appeals are therefore liable to be dismissed.
|