KIRPAL KAUR AND ANOTHER versus RITESH AND OTHERS

KIRPAL KAUR AND ANOTHER versus RITESH AND OTHERS

The agreement dated 11.02.2004 was, on the whole, an agreement to sell and not a loan/security document; concurrent findings by the trial and appellate courts that the agreement was executed and Rs.3,50,000 was paid have attained finality; the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform, so clauses (a) and (c) of Section 20 are not attracted, and the decree for specific performance granted by the first appellate court was rightly upheld by the High Court and this Court, subject to a direction under Article 142 that the plaintiffs pay an additional Rs.3,50,000 to the defendants over and above the balance consideration and on such payment the defendants must execute the sale deed.

Parties
Respondents: KIRPAL KAUR AND ANOTHER; Appellants: RITESH AND OTHERS
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment; Final Disposal by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Section 20 Specific Relief Act, Agreement to Sell, Article 142 of the Constitution, Concurrent Findings of Fact
Specific Relief Property Law Constitutional Law Specific Performance Section 20 Specific Relief Act Agreement to Sell Article 142 of the Constitution Concurrent Findings of Fact

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KIRPAL KAUR AND ANOTHER

Respondents

RITESH AND OTHERS

Appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment; Final Disposal by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement dated 11.02.2004 is an agreement to sell or a loan/security document
  2. 2 Whether concurrent findings of fact on execution of the agreement and payment of part consideration are final
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform and thus entitled to specific performance

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement dated 11.02.2004 was, on the whole, an agreement to sell and not a loan/security document; concurrent findings by the trial and appellate courts that the agreement was executed and Rs.3,50,000 was paid have attained finality; the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform, so clauses (a) and (c) of Section 20 are not attracted, and the decree for specific performance granted by the first appellate court was rightly upheld by the High Court and this Court, subject to a direction under Article 142 that the plaintiffs pay an additional Rs.3,50,000 to the defendants over and above the balance consideration and on such payment the defendants must execute the sale deed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Original plaintiffs directed to pay an additional Rs.350,000 to the appellants-original defendants over and above the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000