Premvati(Ailas)Premavati ... vs Mr. Sanjay Vijay Kumar Adukia
2021 Latest Caselaw 12199 Bom

                                                                                 31 FA-429-19.doc

BDP-SPS-TAC




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  BHARAT
  DASHARATH
  PANDIT


  Digitally signed
  by BHARAT
  DASHARATH
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                       CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1423 OF 2019
  PANDIT
  Date: 2021.09.03
  16:07:46 +0530




                                                       IN
                                          FIRST APPEAL NO.429 OF 2019

                     Smt. Premvati (alias) Premavati
                     Devidas Anand (since deceased)
                     1 smt Nirmala Khosla (since deceased)
                     1(i) Mr. Sanjay Khosla and Ors.                   ....Applicants/
                                                                      original Defendants
                          V/s
                     Sanjay Vijay Kumar Adukia                        .....Respondent/
                                                                      original Plaintiff.

                     Mr. Abhinav Chandrachud i/b Mr. Ashish Dubey for the Applicants
                     Mr. Vinod S. Pandey i/b Mr. S.U. Pandey for the Respondent.

                                          CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                          DATE:    AUGUST 31, 2021

                     P.C.:-


                     1]       This appeal is by the original Defendants who suffered decree of

                     specific performance.



                     2]       Counsel for the Applicants/Appellants would urge that in view

of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Satya Jain

(Dead) Through LRs vs. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (Dead) Through LRs and

others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 131, it was expected of the Trial

31 FA-429-19.doc

Court to look into market value of the property and award

compensation which, in the present case, is awarded at meager rate

i.e. Rs 25 lakhs. He has drawn support from paras 40 and 41 of the

aforesaid judgment, which read thus:-

"40. The discretion to direct specific performance of an agreement and that too after elapse of a long period of time, undoubtedly, has to be exercised on sound, reasonable, rational and acceptable principles. The parameters for the exercise of discretion vested by Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 cannot be entrapped within any precise expression of language and the contours thereof will always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The ultimate guiding test would be the principles of fairness and reasonableness as may be dictated by the peculiar facts of any given case, which features the experienced judicial mind can perceive without any real difficulty. It must however be emphasised that efflux of time and escalation of price of property, by itself, cannot be a valid ground to deny the relief of specific performance. Such a view has been consistently adopted by this Court. By way of illustration opinions rendered in P.S. Ranakrishna Reddy v. M.K. Bhagyalakshmi [(2007) 10 SCC 231] and more recently in Narinderjit Singh v. North Star Estate Promoters Ltd. [(2012) 5 SCC 712 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 379] may be usefully recapitulated."

"41. The twin inhibiting factors identified above if are to be read as a bar to the grant of a decree of specific performance would amount to penalising the plaintiffs for no fault on their part; to deny them the real fruits of a protracted litigation wherein the issues arising are being answered in their favour. From another perspective it may also indicate the inadequacies of the law to deal with the long delays that, at times, occur while rendering the final verdict in a given case. The aforesaid two features, at best, may justify award of additional compensation

31 FA-429-19.doc

to the vendor by grant of a price higher than what had been stipulated in the agreement which price, in a given case, may even be the market price as on date of the order of the final court."

3] Relying on the aforesaid judgment, particularly paras 40 and 41,

submissions of the Counsel for Applicants/Appellants are, he would

like to substantiate his contentions for award of higher compensation

by placing on record market value of the property by filing additional

affidavit alongwith documents.

4] The above submissions are resisted by Counsel for decreeholder/

Respondent on the ground that Respondent was not at fault in the

matter of delay in passing decree in question. According to him,

execution may not be stayed and, at the most, execution of decree be

made subject to final outcome of the appeal.

5] Appeal is already admitted. Perusal of the points, as are decided

by the Trial Court, demonstrates that Applicants/Appellants have

arguable case on merits.

31 FA-429-19.doc

6] Apart from above, Court below has awarded additional

compensation in addition to the balance consideration in favour of the

Applicants/Appellants. However, said findings are not questioned by

the Plaintiff as contemplated under the provisions of Order 22 of the

Civil Procedure Code. In that view of the matter, submissions made by

the learned Counsel for the Applicants/Appellants that he be permitted

to place on record additional material so as to evaluate market value

of the property appears to be justified. That being so, time of four

weeks is granted to place on record documents by way of additional

affidavit supporting market value of the property on the date of the

decree. If so desired, Respondent/decreeholder may file response to

the same within a period of three weeks thereafter.

7] Matter to come up for consideration on 26 th October, 2021. Till

then execution proceedings to go on. However, sale deed of the

property in question will not be executed.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )