Revappa
Gurusiddappa Vs. Thakubai Madhavarao Patil & Ors [1996] INSC 1071 (4 September 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K. Faizan Uddin (J)
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Delay
condoned.
This
special leave petition has been filed against the remand order of the High
Court of Karnataka made on March 25, 1996
in R.S.A. No.196/90. The admitted position is that the first respondent had
entered into an agreement on March 11,1983 to purchase 3 acres 28 gunthas of
land for a consideration of Rs.12,000/- and he had paid Rs.2000/- as earnest
money. The petitioner-second defendant purchased the self-same property on July 8, 1983 for a consideration of Rs.6000/-
and had the sale deed registered. The first respondent filed the suit for
specific performance. The trial Court finding that the petitioner had purchased
the property and it would cause irreparable damage to him if decree for
specific performance being would be granted, had directed refund of the earnest
money with interest. The first respondent carried the matter in appeal. The
appellant Court set aside the decree of the trial Court on the finding that the
petitioner had not pleaded that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without
notice of the prior agreement of sale. It also had held that the refusal to
grant relief of specific performance on that ground was not valid in law.
Accordingly,
it reversed the decree of the trial Court and granted specific performance. In
the second appeal, the High Court while upholding the pleading of the
respondent that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement
and that he had led the evidence in that behalf, remitted the matter to the
district Court to frame an issue on the basis of the previous judgement and the
issue in this behalf was required to be settled. We need not go into the
correctness of the remand order since the first respondent has not filed any
SLP against that order. Suffice it to state that the petitioner has no cause
for grievance in this matter for remanding the matter. In view of the finding that
he is a subsequent purchaser, as found by the trial Court itself, and that the
High Court has remitted the matter to frame the issue whether the first
respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and decide
the matter on the basis of the evidence already on record, we do not think that
there is any error of law committed by the High Court in remitting the matter.
The
SLP is accordingly dismissed.
Back
Pages: 1 2
