Sohan
Singh Vs. Sarwan Singh & Ors [1996] INSC 971 (19 August 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K. Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (7) 508 1996 SCALE (6)253
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
This
special leave petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh made in Second Appeal No.333/96.
The admitted position is that the petitioner had entered Anto an agreement on June 14, 1986 for sale of land admeasuring 6 Kanals
13 marlas for consideration of Rs.85,000/- per killa and received Rs.6,000/- as
earnest money and balance amount was agreed to be paid on registration. The
sale deed was to be executed by July 15, 1987. Since the petitioner failed to execute the sale deed, the
respondent filed the suit for specific performance. All the courts below have
concurrently found, as a fact, that respondent had presented a bank draft for
the balance consideration of Rs.64,000/- at the time of registration and that
the petitioner refused to receive the same. Bank draft is as good a payment of
the consideration as cash. The petitioner committed breach of the conditions in
the performance of the contract. Accordingly, the decree for specific
performance was granted. It is contended for the petitioner that payment by way
of bank draft is not payment of the consideration by cash at the time of the
registration of sale deed by Sub-Registrar. Therefore, the petitioner committed
no breach of any part of the contract.
On the
other hand, the respondent-plaintiff committed breach of contract in not paying
cash consideration at the time of registration in terms of the agreement. The
courts below have committed manifest error of law in decreeing the suit for
specific performance of the contract. We find no force in the contention. The
payment by way of bank draft is as good a payment as cash-in-hand. Instead of
bringing the cash, he had brought bank draft. Under these circumstances, the
demand for payment of cash by the petitioner would be had from the bank who
would honour the same on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner rightly
presented the bank draft at the time of negotiation which is legal tender of
cash payment to the vendor/petitioner. The refusal for receiving bank draft at
the time of registration of the petitioner, therefore, is a breach of the
covenant in terms of the agreement. The courts below have not committed any
manifest error of law to decree the suit for specific performance warranting
interference.
The
special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Back
Pages: 1 2