Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the order dated 30.01.2018, whereby the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent Trust and set aside the orders passed by the Trial Court granting extension of time for depositing the balance of the sale consideration.
Brief Facts:
The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement executed by the first respondent in his favour for the sale of agricultural land. A compromise was arrived at between the parties and accordingly the Trial Court decreed the suit in terms of the compromise. As per the compromise decree, the respondent agreed to sell the suit land for a total consideration of Rs.8,78,500/. The appellant paid a sum of Rs. Rs.7,31,000/immediately to the first respondent. He was required to pay the remaining amount within a period of one month from the date of the compromise decree. The appellant moved an application seeking permission of the court to deposit the balance of Rs.1,47,500/as per the decree. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court, and accordingly, the said amount was deposited by the appellant in the court on the same day. The appellant filed an application for extension of time for payment of balance of the sale consideration which was allowed by the Trial Court. After a passage of about three years from the date of execution of the sale deed, the first respondent filed an application for cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed and for a direction to recover possession of the suit property from the appellant. The Trial Court dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved, the first respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. As noticed above, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and cancelled the sale deed dated 12.01.2011.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC stated that Section 28 of the Special Relief Act, 1963 provides for rescission of the contract for sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed. SC noted that this section gives to the vendor or the lessor the right to rescission of the contract for the sale or lease of the immovable property in the same suit, when after a suit for specific performance is decreed, if the vendor or the lessee fails to pay the purchase money within the period fixed.
SC stated that This section seeks to provide complete relief to both the parties in terms of a decree of specific performance in the said suit without having resort to a separate proceeding. Therefore, a suit for specific performance does not come to an end on the passing of a decree and the court which has passed the decree for specific performance retains control over the decree even after the decree has been passed. Section 28 not only permits the judgment debtors to seek rescission of the contract but also permits extension of time by the court to pay the amount. The power under this section is discretionary and the court has to pass an order as the justice of the case may require. It is also settled that time for payment of sale consideration may be extended even in a consent decree.
SC also referred Smt. Periyakkal and ors. Vs. Smt. Dakshyani, where Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed that even in a compromise decree, the court may enlarge the time in order to prevent manifest injustice, and to give relief to the aggrieved party against a forfeiture clause.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “the Trial Court in its discretion has granted extension of time for depositing the balance of sale consideration assigning cogent reasons. In our view, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the said order and cancelling the sale deed.”
Case Title: Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar (Dead) v. Balaji Mandir Sansthan Mangrul and (Nath) Anr.
Bench: J. S. Abdul Nazeer and J. Vikram Nath
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3794 OF 2022
Decided on: 9th May, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
