‘REPORTABLE’ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2420 OF 2018

R LAKSHMIKANTHAM                               Appellant(s)

VERSUS

DEVARAJI                                       Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

R. F. NARIMAN, J.

In  the  present  appeal,  despite  service  of  notice,

nobody appears for the respondent.  We have heard Dr. (Ms.)

Pooja Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

The High Court, in the present appeal, has, by the

impugned judgment dated 03.02.2017, set aside the concurrent

judgments of the Courts below, and allowed the appeal of the

erstwhile defendant, who is the respondent before us, and

hence, set aside the decree for specific performance that

was passed in the plaintiff’s favour.

By an agreement to sell dated 22.09.2002, the suit-

property was to be sold for a sum of Rs.3,65,000/-.  Certain

clauses  of  the  agreement  are  important  and  are  set  out

hereinbelow:

“1. The sale price of the property mentioned in the schedule  hereunder  shall  be  Rs.3,65,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and Sixty Five Thousand only).

1

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2420 OF 2018

2. The party of the second part has paid a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees  Five  Thousand  only)  towards advance by cash and the party of the first part hereby admit and acknowledge the receipt of the same.

3. The balance sale consideration shall be paid by the party of the second part to the party of the first part within three months from today.  The party of the first part agrees to execute sale deed  on  the  day  on  which  the  balance  sale consideration is paid.

4. The party of the second part agrees to pay part of the sale consideration of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees Sixty Thousand only) to the party of the first on or before 10th day of October.

5. The party of the first part had handed over the original title documents to the mortgagee and the party of the second part shall settle the loan, receive the documents from the mortgagee and keep the same in his custody.

…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………….

8. If  there  is  no  encumbrance  to  the  schedule property and when the party of the second part is willing to pay the balance sale consideration, the party  of  the  first  shall  execute  sale  deed  in favour  of  the  party  of  the  second  part  or  her nominee.  If the party of the first part refuses to do so, the party of the second part is entitled to take legal action.”

It is stated that at the time of the sale agreement,

the suit property was worth roughly a sum of Rs.6 lakhs, but

the parties finally agreed and the defendant, in particular,

agreed to sell the aforesaid property for Rs.3.65 lakhs.  A

perusal  of the  agreement to  sell would  show that  though

clause 3 requires that the balance sale consideration will

be paid within three months from the date of the agreement

2

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2420 OF 2018

and that the seller will execute the sale deed on the date

on which balance sale consideration was paid yet, clauses 5

and 8 clearly show that the original title deeds which are

with  the  mortgagee  had  yet  to  be  handed  over  and  the

mortgage had yet to be redeemed.  It is only when this is

done that clause 3 would kick in, showing that the time of

three months is obviously not of essence.

Soon  after  the  agreement,  the  plaintiff  sent  a

registered letter dated 18.12.2002 to the present address of

the  defendant  reminding  the  defendant  that  Rs.5000/-  had

been  received  on  the  date  of  signing  the  agreement  and

Rs.60,000/- had been received on 14.10.2002.  Despite this,

the  original  title  documents  were  not  obtained  from  the

mortgagee and hence the mortgage could not be discharged.

The letter then goes on to state that repeated calls were

made and that the plaintiff is ready with the balance money,

and that the defendant should come forward immediately to

discharge  the  mortgage,  get  all  documents  from  the

mortgagee, and register the sale deed.  This registered A.D.

letter was returned to the sender stating that the addressee

did not receive the same for the past one week.  The same

was the fate of another legal notice on the very next date,

i.e.,  19.12.2002.  Finally, on 07.07.2003, the plaintiff

sent a legal notice referring to the earlier legal notice of

19.12.2002  and  called  upon  the  defendant  to  immediately

comply with the terms of the agreement.  To this notice,

3

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2420 OF 2018

which was admittedly received by the defendant at the very

same address, no reply was given.  Thereafter, the present

suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff in

February, 2005.  

Given these facts, the trial Court, by its judgment

dated 12.09.2008, held that the suit agreement was proved

and  that  three  notices  sent  by  the  plaintiff  were  also

proved, it being clear that the defendant was attempting to

wriggle out of his obligations under the agreement.  Though

the suit was filed belatedly, the trial Court felt that as

the defendant did not furnish the address of his mortgagee

or take steps to clear the mortgage, it was clear that the

defendant was attempting to wriggle out of the agreement.

Further,  the  plaintiff’s  readiness  and  willingness  was

proved by the fact that he has necessary funds as on the

date of the agreement, and thereafter, as was stated by him

in his letter dated 18.12.2002.  This being the case, the

Court  ordered  specific  performance  as  the  balance  sale

consideration had already been deposited into the Court on

the date of the filing of the Suit.  The first appeal from

the aforesaid judgment was  dismissed on 20.12.2010 by the

Principal  District  Judge.   The  District  Judge  found

concurrently for the plaintiff on all the points argued and

hence dismissed the first appeal.  

By the impugned judgment, the High Court reversed the

concurrent  judgments  and  held,  on  a  construction  of  the

4

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2420 OF 2018

agreement,  that  since  only  three  months  were  given  to

complete the sale transaction, time was of essence.  It also

went on to hold that the two letters dated 18.12.2002 and

19.12.2002 could not have been said to have been served on

the defendant and hence were not proved.  The High court

recorded  the defendant’s advocate’s statement that it was

not going into other aspects except that plaintiff was not

ready and willing throughout to perform the sale agreement.

Despite this, the High Court held that since the Suit itself

was  filed  belatedly,  it  would  not  be  enough  for  the

plaintiff to show that he had the necessary funds.  It would

also  have  been  necessary  for  him  to  show  that  he  was

otherwise ready and willing throughout, which cannot be said

to be correct considering that there was a long time gap

between  22.09.2002  and  07.07.2003  inasmuch  as  the

intermediate  letters/notices  were  not  proved.   The  High

Court also further stated that the property value was Rs.10

lakhs on the date of the sale agreement, though this was not

proved by the defendant, and then went on to state that

since readiness and willingness had to be held against the

Plaintiff, and since the Suit itself was belated, specific

performance cannot be granted on the facts of this case and,

as stated earlier, reversed the concurrent findings of the

Courts below.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.   

The High Court has, in the second appeal, obviously

5

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2420 OF 2018

gone wrong on a number of counts.  First, to hold that time

was  of  essence  in  the  agreement,  is  wholly  incorrect.

Clause 3 has to be read along with clauses 5 and 8, which

clearly show that in the nature of reciprocal promises, the

promise made by the seller in clause 5 has to be performed

first, viz., that the title documents have to be obtained

from the mortgagee after the mortgage is cleared.  It is

only then that the consideration above  Rs.70,000/-, being

the  balance consideration  for the  sale, has  to be  paid.

Secondly, the High court is wholly incorrect in stating that

the two letters of 18.12.2002 and 19.12.2002 cannot be said

to have been proved.    Both the letters were registered

A.D.  letters sent  to the  very address  of the  defendant,

which  the  defendant  states  is  the  address  on  which  it

received the legal notice dated 07.07.2003.  Further, the

moment the registered letter once sent is returned with the

remarks mentioned hereinabove, it shall be deemed to have

been  served  on  the  defendant  on  the  address  so  stated,

unless the contrary is proved.  The defendant did not come

forward with anything to show that this was not the proper

address.  In fact, that this is the proper address is shown

by the fact that he acknowledged the receipt of the legal

notice dated 07.07.2003 on this very address.   

The High Court order is not correct in stating that

readiness  and  willingness  cannot  be  inferred  because  the

letters dated 18.12.2002 and 19.12.2002 had not been sent to

6

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2420 OF 2018

the defendant.  The High Court also erred in holding that

despite having the necessary funds, the plaintiff could not

be  said  to  be  ready  and  willing.   In  the  aforesaid

circumstances, the High Court was also incorrect in putting

a short delay in filing the Suit against the plaintiff to

state that he was not ready and willing.  In India, it is

well settled that the rule of equity that exists in England,

does  not  apply,  and  so  long  as  a  Suit  for  specific

performance is filed within the period of limitation, delay

cannot  be  put  against  the  plaintiff  –  See  Mademsetty

Satyanarayana v. G. Yelloji Rao and others AIR 1965 Supreme

Court 1405 (paragraph 7) which reads as under:  

  “(7)  Mr.  Lakshmaiah  cited  a  long  catena  of English decisoins to define the scope of a Court’s discretion.   Before  referring  to  them,  it  is necessary to know the fundamental differnece between the two systems-English and Indian-qua the relief of specific  performance.   In  England  the  relief  of specific  performance  pertains  to  the  domain  of equity;  in  India,  to  that  of  statutory  law.   In England  there  is  no  period  of  limitation  for instituting  a  suit  for  the  said  relief  and, therefore, mere delay – the time lag depending upon circumstances – may itself be sufficient to refuse the relief; but, in India mere delay cannot be a ground for refusing the said relief, for the statute prescribes the period of limitation.  If the suit is in time, delay is sanctioned by law; if it is beyond time, the suit will be dismissed as barred by time; in either case, no question of equity arises.”

The High Court also went into error in stating that

the value of the property was Rs.10 lakhs at the time of the

sale agreement.  PW-1 in his cross examination admitted that

it was Rs.10 lakhs on the date when PW1 was cross-examined.

7

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2420 OF 2018

The value of the property on the date of the sale agreement

was only Rs.6 lakhs, and it was open for the parties to

negotiate the said price upwards or downwards, which was

what  the  parties  did  in  the  facts  of  the  present  case.

Nothing  can,  therefore,  be  derived  from  the  erroneous

assumption  that  a  valuable  property  had  been  sold  at  a

throwaway price.   

For all these reasons, therefore, we allow the appeal

and set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore

that of the Courts below.   

……………………………………………………………., J. [ R. F. NARIMAN ]

……………………………………………………………., J. [ SURYA KANT ]

New Delhi; July 10, 2019.

8