T. D. VIVEK KUMAR & ANR versus RANBIR CHAUDHARY

T. D. VIVEK KUMAR & ANR versus RANBIR CHAUDHARY

Clause 2 of the sale agreement expressly provided that if the seller failed or refused to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time the seller would be responsible to pay double the advance; therefore the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were correct to refuse specific performance and decree recovery of double the earnest money, and the High Court erred in setting aside those concurrent findings and granting specific performance; the High Court judgment is quashed and the Trial Court decree restored.

Parties
Appellants (original Defendants): T. D. Vivek Kumar & Anr.; Respondent (original Plaintiff): Ranbir Chaudhary
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment in Second Appeal and Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed. High Court judgment and order granting specific performance quashed and set aside; Trial Court decree for recovery of double the earnest money restored.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Earnest Money/double Advance Clause, Review Application, Framing of Substantial Question of Law Under Section 100 CPC
Specific Relief Contract Civil Procedure Specific Performance Earnest Money/double Advance Clause Review Application Framing of Substantial Question of Law Under Section 100 CPC

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T. D. Vivek Kumar & Anr.

Appellants (original Defendants)

Ranbir Chaudhary

Respondent (original Plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment in Second Appeal and Dismissal of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in granting specific performance despite a contract clause entitling the purchaser to double the advance if the seller failed to execute the sale deed
  2. 2 Whether the High Court should have framed a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC while allowing the second appeal
  3. 3 Whether the review application filed pursuant to liberty reserved by this Court was rightly dismissed

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 2 of the sale agreement expressly provided that if the seller failed or refused to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time the seller would be responsible to pay double the advance; therefore the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were correct to refuse specific performance and decree recovery of double the earnest money, and the High Court erred in setting aside those concurrent findings and granting specific performance; the High Court judgment is quashed and the Trial Court decree restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. High Court judgment and order granting specific performance quashed and set aside; Trial Court decree for recovery of double the earnest money restored.

Orders

  • High Court judgment and order dated 27.07.2016 allowing second appeal and granting specific performance quashed and set aside
  • Judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 16.01.2010 decreeing recovery of Rs.400000 (double the earnest money) restored