NDLI: B. Santoshamma & Anr. Vs. D. Sarala & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	relief Specific Performance
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Specific Performance:Agreement for sale of suit land (300 sq. yards) – Betweenappellant-vendor and respondent-vendee – For a total considerationof Rs. 75,000/- – Rs. 45000/- out of the total consideration paid tothe vendor – Total consideration was required to be paid within 45days from the date of agreement – Subsequent to the agreementvendor executed a registered deed of conveyance in favour of ‘P’in respect of 100 sq. yards out of the suit land – Suit for specificperformance by vendee – Plea of vendor that the agreement wassubject to the condition that the vendor would negotiate with ‘P’ toget his earlier agreement with the vendor cancelled – ‘P’ was initiallynot impleaded in the suit for specific performance – However, wasimpleaded after expiry of limitation period – Another suit by vendeeagainst ‘P’ seeking declaration of agreement between vendor and‘P’ as null and void, without impleading the vendor – Suit by ‘P’seeking perpetual injunction against the vendee – Trial courtdecreed the suit for specific performance in part, holding that thevendee was entitled to only 200 sq. yards of the suit land and not tothe 100 sq. yards which was covered by the sale deed in favour of‘P’ – Vendee’s suit against ‘P’ was dismissed for non-joinder of thevendor – Ascertaining the sale consideration for 200 sq. yards tobe Rs. 50,000/- and in view that Rs. 45000/- had already been paidto the vendor, the Court directed the vendee to pay the balance Rs.5000/- within a stipulated time and in default, the suit was to bedismissed – Appeal by vendor as well as the vendee – High Courtconfirmed the judgment of trial court – Appeal to Supreme Court –Held: Vendee was always ready and willing to perform and hadperformed the obligations under the agreement – The vendor failedto discharge the onus to prove that the agreement was subject to thecondition that the vendee would negotiate with ‘P’ – Vendor havingaccepted major part of consideration, cannot contend that theagreement could not have been enforced in respect of 200 sq. yardsin favour of the vendee – The suit for specific performance against‘P’ having been barred by limitation and the suit for declarationhaving been dismissed for non-joinder of vendor, rights of ‘P’ over100 sq. yard cannot be nullified – The orders of courts below donot call for any interference.Specific Relief Act, 1963:s.10 (as amended w.e.f. 01-10-2018) and ss. 11(2), 14 and16 – Specific performance in respect of contracts – Nature of –Held: After amendment of s. 10, relief of specific performance of acontract is no longer discretionary – The Court is obliged to enforcethe same, subject to the provisions of ss. 11(2), 14 and 16.s.12 – Specific performance of part of contract – Permissibility– Held: Ordinarily the Court enforces a contract in its entirety –But, the Court may, u/s. 12 direct the defaulting party to perform somuch part of the contract as can be performed.Party:Necessary party – A transferee, to whom the subject matterof a sale agreement or part thereof is transferred, is a necessaryparty to a suit for specific performance – In a suit for declaring adocument as null and void, the executant of the document in questionis a necessary party.Pleading:Plea of bar under Order II rule 2 CPC – Held: Is a technicalplea, which has to be pleaded and satisfactorily established – Onfailure to raise such plea, court not to decide the plea suo moto –Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order II rule 2.Suit:Clubbing of suits – Purpose and effect of – Held: Clubbingof suits is for the sake of convenience i.e. to save time, costs,repetition of procedures and to avoid conflicting judgments – Suchclubbing does not convert the suits into one action – The suits retaintheir separate identity.
Judge	Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 556
Petitioner	B. Santoshamma & Anr.
Respondent	D. Sarala & Anr.
SCR	[2020] 11 S.C.R. 1
Judgement Date	2020-09-18
Case Number	3574

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

B. Santoshamma & Anr. Vs. D. Sarala & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Thiruvengada Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal & Anr.

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

Gaddipati Divija & Anr. Vs. Pathuri Samrajyam & Ors.

P.s. Ranakrishna Reddy Vs. M.k. Bhagyalakshmi and Anr.

Shanmughasundaram and Ors. Vs. Diravia Nadar (d) By Lrs. and Anr.

Prakash Chandra Vs. Narayan

Smt. Mayawanti Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi

Surjit Kaur Vs. Naurata Singh and Anr.

Sargunam (d) By Lr. Vs. Chidambaram and Anr.

B. Santoshamma & Anr. Vs. D. Sarala & Anr.

B. Santoshamma & Anr. Vs. D. Sarala & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Thiruvengada Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal & Anr.

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

Gaddipati Divija & Anr. Vs. Pathuri Samrajyam & Ors.

P.s. Ranakrishna Reddy Vs. M.k. Bhagyalakshmi and Anr.

Shanmughasundaram and Ors. Vs. Diravia Nadar (d) By Lrs. and Anr.

Prakash Chandra Vs. Narayan

Smt. Mayawanti Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi

Surjit Kaur Vs. Naurata Singh and Anr.

Sargunam (d) By Lr. Vs. Chidambaram and Anr.

B. Santoshamma & Anr. Vs. D. Sarala & Anr.