SUKHWINDER SINGH versus JAGROOP SINGH & ANR.

SUKHWINDER SINGH versus JAGROOP SINGH & ANR.

The plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration as on the stipulated date and thus was not entitled to specific performance against defendant No.1; however, because defendant No.1 had accepted an advance of Rs.69,500 and defendant No.2 has benefited from the property as purchaser, defendant No.2 must repay and compensate the plaintiff by paying Rs.3,50,000 within three months (failing which at 12% p.a.), and the plaintiff may withdraw the Rs.70,500 deposited in court.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Defendant No.2 (appellant); Plaintiff/respondent: Sukhwinder Singh (plaintiff/respondent No.1); Defendant/respondent: Jagroop Singh (defendant No.1/respondent No.2)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment by Supreme Court (final Disposal)
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Readiness and Willingness to Perform, Bonafide Purchaser Without Notice, Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree, Condonation of Delay
Specific Relief Civil Procedure Limitation Specific Performance Readiness and Willingness to Perform Bonafide Purchaser Without Notice Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree Condonation of Delay

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Defendant No.2 (appellant)

Appellant/defendant

Sukhwinder Singh (plaintiff/respondent No.1)

Plaintiff/respondent

Jagroop Singh (defendant No.1/respondent No.2)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment by Supreme Court (final Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract required for specific performance
  2. 2 Whether the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 could be declared void and whether defendant No.2 was a bona fide purchaser without notice
  3. 3 Whether specific performance should be granted or substituted by monetary compensation/damages under Section 20 Specific Relief Act

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration as on the stipulated date and thus was not entitled to specific performance against defendant No.1; however, because defendant No.1 had accepted an advance of Rs.69,500 and defendant No.2 has benefited from the property as purchaser, defendant No.2 must repay and compensate the plaintiff by paying Rs.3,50,000 within three months (failing which at 12% p.a.), and the plaintiff may withdraw the Rs.70,500 deposited in court.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • The judgment and decree dated 24.07.2015 to the extent of granting specific performance is set aside.
  • The judgment and decree dated 17.04.2015 in Case No.915 is modified and the appellant-defendant No.2 is directed to pay Rs.3,50,000 to the plaintiff within three months.