unless the sale made by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No.2, and thereafter by Defendant No.2 to Defendant No.3 are set aside, no decree for specific performance could possibly follow
Citation
B. Vijaya Bharathi Versus P. Savitri & Others
Head Note
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Specific performance - Appellant challenged judgment delivered by single Judge of High Court, by which appeal filed by original third Defendant was allowed and suit for specific performance was dismissed -
Court held - second and third Defendants purchased property even before suit for specific performance was filed - there was no conveyance in favour of Plaintiff after which second and third Defendants purchased property - High Court was clearly right in finding that bar of Section 16(c) was squarely attracted on facts of present case, and fact that second and third Defendant may not be bona fide purchasers would not come in way of stating that such suit must be dismissed at threshold because of lack of readiness and willingness, which was basic condition for grant of specific performance - appeal dismissed.
Paras:16,17,18
Cases Relied:
Ram Awadh (dead) by Lrs. And Others v. Achhaibar Dubey and Another, (2000) 2 SCC 428.
Cases Referred:
M.M.S. Investments, Madurai and Others v. V. Veerappan and Others, (2007) 9 SCC 660.
Jugraj Singh v. Labh Singh, (1995) 2 SCC 31
Madamsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yellogi Rao and two others, AIR 1965 SC 1405 = (1965) (2) SCR 221
Comparative Citations:
2017 AIR(SC) 3934, 2017 (9) Scale 411, 2017 (3) ARC 26, 2017 DNJ 793, 2017 All SCR 1810, 2017 (7) MLJ 81, 2017 (177) ALLINDCAS 125, 2017 (4) CivCC 291, 2018 (1) LW 461, 2018 (11) SCC 761, 2017 (124) ALLLR 599, 2017 (6) ALD 5, 2017 (3) ARC 26, 2017 (4) BLJ 90, 2017 (5) CalHN 23, 2018 (1) CivLJ 569, 2017 DNJ 793, 2017 (4) ICivC 549, 2018 (1) JBCJ 132, 2017 (4) JLJR 7, 2017 (2) KLR 820, 2018 (1) MWN(Civil) 105, 2017 (3) MPWN 146, 2017 (4) Pat LJR 23, 2018 (1) RCR(Civil) 4, 2017 (137) RD 676, 2017 (6) RAJ 207, 2017 (9) Scale 411, 2018 (7) SCJ 142,
Court held - second and third Defendants purchased property even before suit for specific performance was filed - there was no conveyance in favour of Plaintiff after which second and third Defendants purchased property - High Court was clearly right in finding that bar of Section 16(c) was squarely attracted on facts of present case, and fact that second and third Defendant may not be bona fide purchasers would not come in way of stating that such suit must be dismissed at threshold because of lack of readiness and willingness, which was basic condition for grant of specific performance - appeal dismissed.
Paras:16,17,18
Cases Relied:
Ram Awadh (dead) by Lrs. And Others v. Achhaibar Dubey and Another, (2000) 2 SCC 428.
Cases Referred:
M.M.S. Investments, Madurai and Others v. V. Veerappan and Others, (2007) 9 SCC 660.
Jugraj Singh v. Labh Singh, (1995) 2 SCC 31
Madamsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yellogi Rao and two others, AIR 1965 SC 1405 = (1965) (2) SCR 221
Comparative Citations:
2017 AIR(SC) 3934, 2017 (9) Scale 411, 2017 (3) ARC 26, 2017 DNJ 793, 2017 All SCR 1810, 2017 (7) MLJ 81, 2017 (177) ALLINDCAS 125, 2017 (4) CivCC 291, 2018 (1) LW 461, 2018 (11) SCC 761, 2017 (124) ALLLR 599, 2017 (6) ALD 5, 2017 (3) ARC 26, 2017 (4) BLJ 90, 2017 (5) CalHN 23, 2018 (1) CivLJ 569, 2017 DNJ 793, 2017 (4) ICivC 549, 2018 (1) JBCJ 132, 2017 (4) JLJR 7, 2017 (2) KLR 820, 2018 (1) MWN(Civil) 105, 2017 (3) MPWN 146, 2017 (4) Pat LJR 23, 2018 (1) RCR(Civil) 4, 2017 (137) RD 676, 2017 (6) RAJ 207, 2017 (9) Scale 411, 2018 (7) SCJ 142,
2017 (7) MLJ 81
C) [B.Vijaya Bharathi v. P.Savitri and others]
17) It must also be noted that though aware of two conveyances of the same property, the plaintiff did not ask for their cancellation. This again, would stand in the way of a decree of specific performance for unless the sale made by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No.2, and thereafter by Defendant No.2 to Defendant No.3 are set aside, no decree for specific performance could possibly follow
Comments
Post a Comment