Part No.IV - Supreme Court of India

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SARADAMANI KANDAPPAN v. S. RAJALAKSHMI & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] 11. The four respondents contested the third suit (C.S. No.170 of 1984) filed against him by denying that he had received a commission of Rs.1.25 lakhs and contending that it was received as security for due performance of the contract in terms of the agreement dated 17.1.1981. 12. The following issues were framed in the injunction suit: (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for against the defendants? (ii) To what reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to? The following issues were framed in the specific performance suit : (1) Whether the plaintiff has committed breach of the contract by way of default in payment and thus was lacking in readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract? (2) Is the time essence of the contract? (3) If so, whether the termination of the contract by the defendant is valid? (4) Is not the plaintiff entitled to specific performance? (5) To what relief is the parties entitled? Addl. Issue (1) :Whether the fourth defendant is a necessary and proper party to the suit? Addl. Issue (2) :Whether by reason of filing of C.S. No. 170 of 1984, is the plaintiff entitled to specific performance? In the suit for refund of Rs.1,25,000/-, the following issues were framed: 907 908 A B C D E F G H A B C D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R. (1) Whether the payment of Rs. 1,25,000/- made by the plaintiff to the defendant on 17.1.1981 was towards the commission charges as per the letter given by the defendant or towards part of consideration for the sale in question? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to return of the said amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. (3) To what other relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? 13. Common evidence was recorded in the three suits. On behalf of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined, that is plaintiff as PW1 and one Babu as PW-2 and one Balaraman as PW-3. Ex P-1 to P-20 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses were examined, that is one Rajendran as DW-1 and fourth defendant as DW- 2. Ex.D-1 to D-6 were marked on behalf of the defendants. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, a learned Single Judge of the High Court, by his common judgment dated 29.11.1991, dismissed all the three suits. 14. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant filed three original side appeals. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the said appeals by common judgment dated 19.6.2002, affirming the judgment of the trial court. The Division Bench however directed the respondents to repay Rs.3,50,000 (i.e. Rs.2,25,000 paid to defendants 1 to 3 and Rs.1,25,000 paid to defendant No. 4) with interest at 9% per annum for the period during which the appellant was not acting as caretaker till the complete payment was made. While disposing of the said three appeals, the Division Bench also dismissed three applications. The first (CMP No.2888/1996) was an application filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note the existing condition and physical features of the suit property. The second (CMP No.17401/1997) was an application filed by the appellant’s son to implead him as a party alleging that the substantial part of the amounts paid
SARADAMANI KANDAPPAN v. S. RAJALAKSHMI & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] to defendant came from him. The third (CMP No.7471/1002) was an application by the appellant to receive by way of additional evidence, a judgment rendered by this Court in suo moto contempt proceedings, as also a letter from the appellant’s counsel to the Bank of India, Mylapore Branch and a reply thereto. 15. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, after exhaustive consideration of the evidence, have recorded the following findings of fact : (a) Respondents 1 to 3 entered into an agreement dated 17.1.1981 agreeing to sell 24 acres 95 cents of land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- and received in all, Rs.2,25,000 as advance. (b) Plaintiff had paid an additional consideration of Rs.1,25,000 for the movables and taken a letter from the fourth respondent describing it as ‘commission’, by way of security, with the understanding that if the sale did not take place, the amount should be refunded. (c) The time for payment of the balance sale price stipulated in Clause (4) of the agreement of sale was the essence of the contract. (d) Plaintiff’s claim that in March, 1981, clause (4) regarding payment schedule was modified by oral agreement under which it was agreed that the instalments due on 6.4.1981 and 30.5.1981 could be paid after the defendants satisfied the plaintiff about their title to the property agreed to be sold, was not established by plaintiff. The terms of the agreement remained unaltered. (e) Plaintiff committed breach by failing to pay the sum of Rs.1,00,000 due on 6.4.1981 (except Rs.25,000 paid on 2.4.1981) and the sum of Rs.75,000 due on 30.5.1981 and the defendants were therefore justified in cancelling the agreement on 2.8.1981. 909 910 A B C D E F G H A B C D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R. (f) The defendants did not deliver possession of the properties agreed to be sold, to the plaintiff in part performance of the agreement of sale dated 17.1.1981. The defendants delivered the property to the plaintiff in trust to hold the same as caretaker, until the vendors received the entire sale price and delivered possession. Therefore when the agreement was cancelled and consequently the appointment as caretaker came to an end, the plaintiff became liable to return the suit schedule properties to the defendants. (g) The plaintiff and her husband had knowledge of the existence of mortgage, before entering into the agreement of sale on 17.1.1981; and the case put forth by the defendants that as per the understanding between the parties, the defendants had to discharge the mortgage debts and secure the original title deeds after receiving the entire consideration, merited acceptance. As per the term of the agreement, the defendants had no obligation to produce the original title deeds or proof of clearance of loans, before plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration. (h) The plaintiff failed to establish her readiness and willingness to complete the sale in terms of the agreement and she was not entitled to the relief of specific performance. 16. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the division bench, the appellant has filed these appeals (CA Nos. 7254 to 7256 of 2002), challenging the findings of fact arrived at by the High Court and also raising some legal contentions. Where findings of fact recorded by the learned single Judge (trial court) are affirmed by the appellate bench of the High Court in appeal, this court will be reluctant to interfere with such findings in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, unless there are very strong reasons to do so. On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for our consideration:
Page 1 and 2: [2011] 8 S.C.R. 829 MAHADEV GOVIND
Page 3 and 4: MAHADEV GOVIND GHARGE v. SPL. LAO U
Page 25 and 26: SARADAMANI KANDAPPAN v. S. RAJALAKS
Page 39: SARADAMANI KANDAPPAN v. S. RAJALAKS
Page 59 and 60: V. SUMATIBEN MAGANLAL MANANI (DEAD)
Page 71 and 72: STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. BHAGYADHA
Page 83 and 84: RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA D
Page 91 and 92:
RAMESHWARI DEVI & ORS. v. NIRMALA D
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
NANDINI SUNDAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
1089 1090 SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
Page 133 and 134:
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AN
Page 135 and 136:
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AN
Page 137 and 138:
1101 SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFIC
Page 139 and 140:
1105 1106 CHANDNA IMPEX PVT. LIMITE
Page 141 and 142:
CHANDNA IMPEX PVT. LIMITED v. COMMI
Page 143 and 144:
CHANDNA IMPEX PVT. LIMITED v. COMMI
Page 145 and 146:
STATE OF RAJASTHAN TH. SECY.HOME DE
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
STATE OF DELHI v. RAM AVTAR @ RAMA
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
NAND KISHORE v. STATE OF MADHYA PRA
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
show all

Part No.IV - Supreme Court of India

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?