Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1397 - SC - Indian LawsAssignment of rights - Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act - whether there was a valid assignment of rights by the original vendees in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 under the 1987 agreements? - HELD THAT:- The mere fact that the original owner Mr. Naranbhai Patel signed the development permissions for the suit property and may have been present at the Bhoomi Pujan does not indicate that he consented to assignment of the 1986 agreement. The 1986 agreement stipulated that the original owners would give their signatures for obtaining necessary permissions for the proposed development on the suit property. Hence, as the trial court has rightly noted, Mr. Naranbhai Patel was only carrying out his contractual obligation as he had promised to the original vendees. This does not indicate that he was under the impression that the said permissions were now to be obtained for the benefit of Respondent Nos. 1 - It is pertinent to note that Respondent Nos. 1 conceded before the trial court that the Appellants had given their signatures on the layout plan for the housing scheme on the suit property to the original vendees, not to Respondent Nos. 1. Even the advertisement regarding the ‘Unnati Park’ housing scheme nowhere indicates that the Appellants/original owners were developing the project on the suit property in partnership with Respondent Nos. 1 - there was no valid assignment of rights flowing from the 1986 agreement to Respondent Nos. 1, and they cannot seek specific performance against the Appellants. Whether the right of Respondent Nos. 1 to seek specific performance survives subsequent to the cancellation of the 1986 agreement by the Appellants and withdrawal of suit in SCS No. 194/1988 by the original vendees? - HELD THAT:- The trial court has found that though the suit property de jure vested with the concerned government authority under the Town Planning Scheme, the de facto possession of the property remains with the Appellants and the original vendees have not taken possession thereof. Furthermore, both the trial court and the learned District Judge have on facts found that the original vendees have not shown any readiness or willingness to pay the remaining consideration to the Appellants. Hence since the original vendees have abandoned their rights under the 1986 agreement, enforcement of the 1987 agreements has become virtually impossible and Respondent Nos. 1 cannot seek specific performance of the latter. Consequently the 1987 agreements are void and unenforceable as provided under Sections 32 and 35 of the Contract Act - since the original vendees have revoked the Power-of-Attorney, status-quo has been restored, and the Plaintiffs’ cause of action no longer exists. The Learned District Judge and the High Court in the impugned judgement have affirmed the trial court’s reasoning on this aspect, and we see no reason to overturn their concurrent findings on this matter. Whether relief may be granted to Respondent Nos. 1, and if so, of what nature? - HELD THAT:- Though we have found that on facts and law, Respondent Nos. 1 are not entitled to specific performance of the 1986 and 1987 agreements, prima facie it does appear that the Appellants and the original vendees have colluded to frustrate performance of the 1987 agreements. The trial court had directed the original vendees to reimburse earnest money of ₹ 5000 paid by Respondent Nos. 1 towards each of the 1987 agreements with an interest of 9% p.a. from 14.9.1987 till the date of realization. We are in agreement with the aforesaid direction. Appeal allowed in part.
|