Specific Relief Act, 1963: s.21 – Power to award compensation – Agreement to sell land – Plaintiff-purchaser paid Rs.31.5 lakhs out of Rs.32 lakhs – Failure on part of defendant to execute sale deed in terms of the agreement of sale – Suit for specific performance – During pendency of suit, land in question acquired under Land Acquisition Act – Trial court passed decree for specific performance directing defendant to execute sale deed on receiving balance consideration – First appellate court upheld the order of trial court – High Court held that plaintiff shall be deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the defendant-original land owner and shall be entitled to entire amount of compensation along with solatium and interest etc. owing to the acquisition of the land in question – On appeal, held: There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the courts below on the execution of the agreement to sell by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff; payment of Rs. 31.50 lakhs towards part sale consideration and the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/- – Therefore, as such, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for specific performance – However, in view of the fact that before the final decree could be passed by trial court, the land in question came to be acquired and, therefore, plaintiff would be deemed to be in the shoes of the defendant and shall be entitled to the amount of compensation, determined and awarded under the Land Acquisition Act – Submission of defendant has no substance that as compensation was not specifically prayed by the plaintiff in the suit, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any amount of compensation even considering s.21 of the Specific Relief Act – The decree for compensation is passed as an alternate decree and in lieu of the decree for specific performance – High Court rightly held that the plaintiff shall be entitled to the entire amount of compensation awarded together with interest and solatium – However, at the same time, the defendant-original land owner shall also be entitled to the deduction therefrom of money value of the services, time and energy expended in pursuing the claims of compensation and the expenditure incurred by him in the litigation culminating in the award.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the courts below on the execution of the agreement to sell by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff; payment of Rs. 31,50,000/- towards part sale consideration by the plaintiff to the defendant (out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 32 lakhs) and the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, as such, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the decree for specific performance. However, in view of the fact that before the final decree could be passed by the trial court, the land in question came to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore the question arose before the High Court what relief the plaintiff shall be entitled to in the event the decree of specific performance is required to be modified by an alternative decree. [Para 7][175H; 176-A-C]
1.2 Applying the law laid down by this Court in Jagdish Singh and Urmila Devi to the facts of the case in hand, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in modifying the decree for specific performance. As rightly held by the High Court, as such, the plaintiff will be deemed to be in the shoes of the defendant and therefore shall be entitled to the amount of compensation, determined and awarded under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. [Para 9][178-B-C]
Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh (1992) 1 SCC 647 : [1991] 2 Suppl. SCR 567; Urmila Devi v. Deity, Mandir Shree Chamunda Devi (2018) 2 SCC 284 : [2018] 1 SCR 797 – relied on.
2. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that as compensation has not been specifically prayed by the plaintiff in the suit, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any amount of compensation even considering Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act. The aforesaid has no substance. The decree for compensation is passed as an alternate decree and in lieu of the decree for specific performance. [Para 10][178-C-D]
3. Now so far as the amount of compensation is concerned, as observed by this Court in the case of Jagdish Singh, the compensation determined and awarded under the Land Acquisition Act may safely be taken into consideration. Therefore, the High Court has rightly observed and held that the plaintiff shall be entitled to the entire amount of compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act together with interest and solatium. However, at the same time, the defendant – original land owner shall also be entitled to the deduction therefrom of money value of the services, time and energy expended in pursuing the claims of compensation and the expenditure incurred by him in the litigation culminating in the award. As such, nothing is on record to suggest that any expenses have been incurred by the appellant. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of Jagdish Singh and Urmila Devi, ends of justice will be served if the plaintiff is awarded the entire amount of compensation determined under the Land Acquisition Act together with interest and solatium less Rs. 2,50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- (towards the balance sale consideration). [Para 11][178-D-H]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.