RAM LAL versus JARNAIL SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH ITS LRS & ORS.

RAM LAL versus JARNAIL SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH ITS LRS & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that once an appellate court affirms a trial court's decree the appellate decree becomes the operative and executable decree (doctrine of merger); appellate courts have a duty under Order XX Rule 12A CPC to specify the time for deposit of purchase money when they decide appeals, and courts (including at the appellate stage) have jurisdiction under Section 28 Specific Relief Act to extend time to deposit purchase money subject to judicial discretion considering bona fides, cause and length of delay and equities; on the facts the High Court erred in setting aside the executing court's order permitting deposit because the decree-holder deposited Rs.4,87,000 on...

Parties
Appellant / Decree Holder: Ram Lal; Respondents / Judgment Debtors: Jarnail Singh (Now Deceased) through its LRs & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (civil Appeal No. 3245 of 2025) / Final Judgment on Appeal by the Supreme Court (challenge to High Court Order in Civil Revision No.3723/2019)
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Execution of Decree, Delay in Filing Execution Petition, Time Limit for Deposit of Balance Sale Consideration, Section 28 Specific Relief Act (rescission), Order XX Rule 12 a CPC, Doctrine of Merger, Interest for Delayed Performance
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Limitation Act, 1963 Specific Performance Execution of Decree Delay in Filing Execution Petition Time Limit for Deposit of Balance Sale Consideration Section 28 Specific Relief Act (rescission) +3 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Lal

Appellant / Decree Holder

Jarnail Singh (Now Deceased) through its LRs & Ors.

Respondents / Judgment Debtors

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (civil Appeal No. 3245 of 2025) / Final Judgment on Appeal by the Supreme Court (challenge to High Court Order in Civil Revision No.3723/2019)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the executing court's order permitting the decree-holder to deposit the balance sale consideration and directing execution of the sale deed
  2. 2 Whether a decree for specific performance becomes inexecutable by reason of delay in seeking execution or deposit of the balance sale consideration where the appellate court did not fix a time for deposit
  3. 3 Whether the court (trial or appellate) has power to extend time to deposit purchase money under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and the factors to be considered in doing so

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that once an appellate court affirms a trial court's decree the appellate decree becomes the operative and executable decree (doctrine of merger); appellate courts have a duty under Order XX Rule 12A CPC to specify the time for deposit of purchase money when they decide appeals, and courts (including at the appellate stage) have jurisdiction under Section 28 Specific Relief Act to extend time to deposit purchase money subject to judicial discretion considering bona fides, cause and length of delay and equities; on the facts the High Court erred in setting aside the executing court's order permitting deposit because the decree-holder deposited Rs.4,87,000 on...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Impugned order of the High Court dated 30-08-2022 is set aside.
  • Order of the executing court dated 06-05-2019 is affirmed.