SUKHBIR versus AJIT SINGH

SUKHBIR versus AJIT SINGH

There are concurrent findings that an agreement to sell was executed, Rs.31,50,000 was paid and the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance. Specific performance would have been granted, but as the land was acquired before the final decree performance became impossible; under Section 21 the plaintiff is deemed in the shoes of the vendor and is entitled to the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act together with solatium and interest, subject to lawful deductions (here Rs.3,00,000 being Rs.2,50,000 for expenses and Rs.50,000 balance sale consideration), and the High Court's modification awarding compensation in lieu of specific performance was justified.

Parties
Appellant (original Defendant): SUKHBIR; Respondent (original Plaintiff): AJIT SINGH
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 4848/2016
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Compensation in Lieu of Specific Performance, Acquisition of Property, Section 21 Specific Relief Act, Measure of Compensation, Deductions for Litigation Expenses
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Land Acquisition Act Indian Contract Act Specific Performance Compensation in Lieu of Specific Performance Acquisition of Property Section 21 Specific Relief Act Measure of Compensation +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SUKHBIR

Appellant (original Defendant)

AJIT SINGH

Respondent (original Plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 4848/2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific performance can be granted where the land is compulsorily acquired during pendency of the suit
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act when acquisition occurs before decree
  3. 3 Whether compensation can be measured by amount awarded under the Land Acquisition Act and what deductions are permissible

Ratio Decidendi

There are concurrent findings that an agreement to sell was executed, Rs.31,50,000 was paid and the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance. Specific performance would have been granted, but as the land was acquired before the final decree performance became impossible; under Section 21 the plaintiff is deemed in the shoes of the vendor and is entitled to the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act together with solatium and interest, subject to lawful deductions (here Rs.3,00,000 being Rs.2,50,000 for expenses and Rs.50,000 balance sale consideration), and the High Court's modification awarding compensation in lieu of specific performance was justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Impugned High Court judgment modified to the extent that respondent (original plaintiff) is entitled to recover the entire amount of compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act with solatium and interest deposited with the acquiring body, less Rs.3,00,000 (Rs.2,50,000 towards expenses and Rs.50,000 towards...
  • Appellant (original defendant) entitled to Rs.3,00,000 from the amount of compensation deposited with the acquiring body; balance of compensation together with interest and solatium to be paid to respondent