Thursday, 24 September 2020

THE NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY (LOK ADALAT) REGULATIONS, 2009 as amended by notification dated 28.08.2019

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HTGKNJK1VuzyQ21vxWUSEN-HOdU2tVC_/view?usp=sharing

Print Page

Whether the court can decree specific performance of part of the contract?

 Since title in respect of 100 square yards had passed to Pratap

Reddy and the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation, the Trial Court was constrained to decree the suit for specific performance in part, and direct that a Deed of Conveyance be executed in respect of the balance 200 square yards of the suit land, under the ownership and control of the Vendor.

87. Section 12 of the SRA is to be construed and interpreted in a

purposive and meaningful manner to empower the Court to direct specific performance by the defaulting party, of so much of the contract, as can be performed, in a case like this. To hold otherwise would permit a party to a contract for sale of land, to deliberately frustrate the entire contract by transferring a part of the suit property and creating third party interests over the same.

88. Section 12 has to be construed in a liberal, purposive manner

that is fair and promotes justice. A contractee who frustrates a

contract deliberately by his own wrongful acts cannot be permitted to escape scot free.

89. After having entered into an agreement for sale of 300 Sq.

yards of land, with her eyes open, and accepted a major part of the consideration (Rs.45,000/- out of Rs.75,000/-) it does not lie in the mouth of the Vendor to contend that the contract should not have specifically been enforced in part, in respect of the balance 200 sq. yards meters of the suit land which the Vendor still owned. 

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3574 OF 2009

B. SANTOSHAMMA & ANR. Vs D. SARALA & ANR. 

Print Page

Whether court can suo motto decide plea of O 2 R 2 of CPC?

 The plea of bar under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC is a technical plea which has to be pleaded and satisfactorily established. In R. A. Oswal v. Deepak Jewellers and Ors.3, this Court held that if the plea of bar under Order II Rule 2 is not taken, the Court should not suo moto decide the plea. Moreover, in Dalip Singh v. Mehar Singh Rathee and Ors.4, this Court held that the plea cannot be raised before this Court if not raised in the High Court.{Para 93}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3574 OF 2009

B. SANTOSHAMMA & ANR. Vs D. SARALA & ANR. 

Print Page

Whether suits which are consolidated together will become one suit?

  Mr. Navare submitted that Pratap Reddy had also filed a suit

for declaration and possession being O.S. No.190/1985. All 3 suits

were clubbed together and heard together. However,

(i) consolidation of 3 suits does not convert 3 suits into one

action.

(ii) Consolidation of suits is for practical reasons such as,

saving costs, time and efforts of the parties,

convenience of the parties, avoiding repetitive

exercises in 3 suits and avoiding conflict of judgment in

the 3 suits. However, the 3 suits consolidated/clubbed

together retain their separate identity. In support of his

argument Mr. Navare cited Mahalaxmi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. v. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel (D) thr. Lrs. and Ors.(2013) 4 SCC 404 [41]

{Para 49}

50. Mr. Navare emphatically argued that the right which have

accrued to Pratap Reddy, as a result of defective suits filed by the

Vendee, cannot stand abrogated by consolidation of the suits. There is no provision in the CPC which permits a party to be deprived of such accrued, right because of defects in the suit.

It is true that, the clubbing of suits for hearing them together and disposal thereof by a common judgment and order is for practical reasons. Such clubbing together of the suits do not convert the suits into one action as argued by Mr. Navare. The suits retain their separate identity as held in Mahalaxmi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. v. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel (supra). The clubbing together is done for convenience, inter alia, to save time, costs, repetition of procedures and to avoid conflicting judgments.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3574 OF 2009

B. SANTOSHAMMA & ANR. Vs D. SARALA & ANR. 

Print Page