The division judge bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian of the apex court in the case of Raman (dead) by LRS Vs R Natarajan held that a Court cannot grant the relief of specific performance against a person compelling him to enter into an agreement with a third party and seek specific relief against such a third party.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the specific performance of the agreement mainly consists of two parts, (i) the defendant entering into an agreement with his brother’s wife for the purchase of land agreed to be sold under the suit agreement for sale; and (ii) the defendant thereafter executing a sale deed conveying the property covered by the suit agreement of sale. The Trial Court granted the respondent's suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale of immovable property, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decree. The High Court, on the other hand, overturned the First Appellate Court's judgment and decree and reinstated the Trial Court's decree for specific performance. The original defendant's legal representatives have filed an appeal in response to the same.
COURT'S OBSERVATION
The hon'ble court observed that the mistakes committed by the High Court were manifold. First, the High Court framed a question that was actually a question of fact that involved appreciation of evidence and not a substantial question of law. As a consequence, the answer given by the High Court was only a finding of fact. Next, the High Court reversed the finding of the First Appellate Court on the question of limitation, without framing a substantial question of law and without even referring to the statutory provisions.
The agreement contains four endorsements and the defendant raised the question of limitation, on the basis of the fact that the fourth endorsement was made beyond a period of three years from the date of the third endorsement. Such a defense was based upon Section 18(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Further, the only substantial question of law framed by the High Court at the time of entertaining the second appeal was not about limitations revolving around Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Therefore, the High Court could not have answered the question of limitation in favor of the respondent herein, (i) without framing any substantial question of law; and (ii) without even a reference to Article 54.
The hon'ble court held that a Court cannot grant the relief of specific performance against a person compelling him to enter into an agreement with a third party and seek specific relief against such a third party. In other words, the specific performance of the agreement by the appellants herein depended upon (i) the appellants entering into an agreement with a third party; and (ii) the appellants being in a position to compel such third party to perform her obligations under such agreement. Since the defendant’s brother’s wife was not a party to the suit agreement of sale, the Court cannot compel her to enter into an agreement with the defendant. Moreover, it appears that the case on hand will not even be covered by subsections (2), (3) & (4) of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act. Since it is stated very clearly in the suit Agreement of Sale that the land covered by the Agreement will not have any access, unless the defendant entered into an agreement with his brother’s wife, it is clear that none of the exceptions contained in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 12 will apply.
Even the limited rights conferred by Section 13(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act is not available to the respondent, as there was no legal right in the defendant to compel 3rd parties to convey their land to him for the purpose of providing a pathway to the land agreed to be sold to the respondent herein. At last, the hon'ble court committed a grave error in n law in granting a decree for specific performance.
CASE NAME- Raman (dead) by LRS Vs R Natarajan
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6554 OF 2022
DATE-13.09.2022
CORUM- Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
