NDLI: Kapilaben & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth Through Poa Gopalbhai Madhusudan Patel & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Specific performance of contract Representative-in-interest’ Agreement to sel l disputed property in the year 1986 privity of contract
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Specific Performance: Specific performance of contract – Agreement to sell disputed property in the year 1986 between original vendor and original vendees – Sale was to be executed upon receipt of remaining consideration from the original vendees within stipulated time – The original vendees thereafter in the year 1987 executed four agreements to sell the four different portions of the property in dispute to the vendees in the present case (i.e. respondent Nos.1) – The vendees under 1987 agreement were required to start a housing project on the land in question – Suit for specific performance of 1986 agreement was filed by the original vendee against the original vendor – The vendees under 1987 agreements also filed suit for specific performance of the 1987 agreements – Original vendees withdrew their suit for specific performance of 1986 agreement and the vendees in respect of 1987 agreements sought impleadment as co-plaintiffs in that suit – Trial court rejected the withdrawal application and allowed the impleadment application – High Court reversing the order of trial court allowed the withdrawal application and rejected impleadment applications – The order of High Court was affirmed by Supreme Court – Vendees of 1987 agreement amended their suit for specific performance of 1987 agreement seeking execution of 1986 agreement on the basis of assignment made in their favour – Trial court dismissed the suits – Appellate Court affirmed the finding of trial court – High Court allowed the case of vendees of 1987 agreement – Appeal to Supreme Court by the original vendors – Held: There was no privity of contract between the appellants (original vendors) and respondent No.1 (vendees in 1987 agreement) as neither appellants were party to 1987 agreements, nor respondent Nos.1 were party to the 1986 agreement – Hence respondent Nos.1 cannot seek specific performance of 1986 or 1987 agreements against the appellants except by suing as representative-in-interest or the original vendees u/s. 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act – The term ‘representative-in-interest’ includes the assignee of a contractual interest – Whether or not an assignee can seek specific performance would depend upon the construction of the contract – In the facts of the present case, 1987 agreements were not a case of assignment, but were independent agreements for sale which were contingent upon the execution of 1986 agreement – Therefore, the only way respondent Nos.1 could seek specific performance of the 1986 agreement was by proving the appellants’ knowledge of and consent to transfer of the original vendees’ rights and liabilities to respondent Nos.1 – In the present case, appellants have neither by words nor by conduct, consented to the assignment of the 1986 agreement in favour of respondent Nos.1 – 1987 agreements were contingent contracts – Once 1986 agreement was cancelled, the original vendees’ rights thereunder ceased to exist – Due to subsequent withdrawal of the suit for specific performance of 1986 agreement abandoning their rights, enforcement of 1987 agreements has become impossible – Thus, 1987 agreements are void and unenforceable as provided u/ss. 32 and 35 of the Contract Act – However, it prima facie seems that the original vendees relinquished their rights in the 1986 agreements to frustrate the performance of 1987 agreements, original vendees are directed to reimburse earnest money and 9% interest per annum and pay compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum – Specific Performance Act, 1963 – s.15(b) – Contract Act, 1872 – ss.32, 35 and 40 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.40.Contract: Assignability of Contract – Held: Promisor cannot assign contract to the third party without consent of the promisee. Words and Phrases: ‘Representative-in-interest’ – Meaning of in the context of contrac
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 1278
Petitioner	Kapilaben & Ors.
Respondent	Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth Through Poa Gopalbhai Madhusudan Patel & Ors.
SCR	[2019] 17 S.C.R. 247
Judgement Date	2019-11-25
Case Number	10683

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Kapilaben & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth Through Poa Gopalbhai Madhusudan Patel & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Brij Mohan and Ors. Vs. Smt. Sugra Begum and Ors.

Dharmabiri Rana Vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma (d) Thr. Lrs. & Anr.

K.prakash Vs. B.r. Sampath Kumar

Banshilal Soni (dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Kastoor Chand Begani (dead) By L.rs. & Ors.

Alagammal and Ors Vs. Ganesan and Anr

Rajesh Kumar Vs. Anand Kumar & Ors.

Desh Raj & Ors. Vs. Rohtash Singh

Kalawati (d) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Ors.

Mukul Sharma Vs. Orion India (p) Ltd. Through Its Managing Director

Kapilaben & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth Through Poa Gopalbhai Madhusudan Patel & Ors.

Kapilaben & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth Through Poa Gopalbhai Madhusudan Patel & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Brij Mohan and Ors. Vs. Smt. Sugra Begum and Ors.

Dharmabiri Rana Vs. Pramod Kumar Sharma (d) Thr. Lrs. & Anr.

K.prakash Vs. B.r. Sampath Kumar

Banshilal Soni (dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Kastoor Chand Begani (dead) By L.rs. & Ors.

Alagammal and Ors Vs. Ganesan and Anr

Rajesh Kumar Vs. Anand Kumar & Ors.

Desh Raj & Ors. Vs. Rohtash Singh

Kalawati (d) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Rakesh Kumar & Ors.

Mukul Sharma Vs. Orion India (p) Ltd. Through Its Managing Director

Kapilaben & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth Through Poa Gopalbhai Madhusudan Patel & Ors.