VURIMI PULLARAO S/O SATYANARAYANA versus VEMARI VYANKATA RADHARANI W/O DHANKOTESHWARRAO & ANR

VURIMI PULLARAO S/O SATYANARAYANA versus VEMARI VYANKATA RADHARANI W/O DHANKOTESHWARRAO & ANR

The Court held that the cause of action for specific performance had arisen when the earlier suit for injunction was instituted and paragraph 2 of the plaint in that earlier suit recited the agreement, consideration, possession, notice of performance and refusal to perform; a certified copy of that plaint was on record and marked as an exhibit without objection. Therefore the appellant was entitled to sue for specific performance when the earlier suit was filed but omitted to do so without seeking leave under Order 2 Rule 2(3), and consequently the subsequent suit for specific performance was barred under Order 2 Rule 2(3). The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the courts...

Parties
Appellant: Vurimi Pullarao S/O Satyanarayana; Respondent: Vemari Vyankata Radharani W/O Dhankoteshwarrao & Anr
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Civil Appeal Under Article 136 Arising From High Court Second Appeal
Outcome
Appeals disposed of; judgment of the High Court maintained; the subsequent suits for specific performance held barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC
Legal Topics
Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, Specific Performance, Injunction, Leave to Sue
Civil Procedure Contract Property Law Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Specific Performance Injunction Leave to Sue

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

Parties

Vurimi Pullarao S/O Satyanarayana

Appellant

Vemari Vyankata Radharani W/O Dhankoteshwarrao & Anr

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Civil Appeal Under Article 136 Arising From High Court Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a subsequent suit for specific performance is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC when an earlier suit for injunction based on the same cause of action was instituted without seeking leave to omit the relief of specific performance
  2. 2 Whether the plaint in the earlier suit must be proved in evidence to attract the bar under Order 2 Rule 2
  3. 3 Whether the cause of action for specific performance had arisen at the time the earlier suit for injunction was instituted

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the cause of action for specific performance had arisen when the earlier suit for injunction was instituted and paragraph 2 of the plaint in that earlier suit recited the agreement, consideration, possession, notice of performance and refusal to perform; a certified copy of that plaint was on record and marked as an exhibit without objection. Therefore the appellant was entitled to sue for specific performance when the earlier suit was filed but omitted to do so without seeking leave under Order 2 Rule 2(3), and consequently the subsequent suit for specific performance was barred under Order 2 Rule 2(3). The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the courts...

Court Disposition

Appeals disposed of; judgment of the High Court maintained; the subsequent suits for specific performance held barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the High Court is maintained
  • In Civil Appeal No.9065 of 2019 defendant to refund to the plaintiff the amount deposited with the defendant (amounts paid under the agreement) together with interest at nine per cent per annum and the plaintiff to be refunded Rs 30,000 deposited in the trial court with accrued interest if any; if not refunded...