Bhagwandas
Fatechanci Daswani & Ors Vs. HPA International & Ors [2000] INSC 14 (13 January 2000)
V.N.Khare,
N.Santosh Hegde
DER
The defendant-appellants, who are the subsequent purchasers, are in appeal.
This appeal is directed against tile judgment of Madras High Court dated 24th January, 1994 whereby the decree for specific
performance of the agreement passed by the trial court was affirmed.
On 26th June, 1977 respondent No. 2 entered into an
agreement with first respondent serein, for transfer of his life interest in
the property in dispute. On 29.2.79.
respondent
No. 2 transferred the rights in favour of the defendant-appellants who are the
subsequent purchasers for consideration of Rs. 4.40 lakhs. Under such
circumstances, plaintiff- respondent No. I brought a suit for specific
performance, which was decreed by the trial court and the appeal preferred to
the Hight Court was dismissed. It is in this way
the defendant-appellants are before us.
Learned
Attorney General appearing for the appellants urged that, before the High
Court, the hearing of the appeal was concluded on 22 March, 1989 but the judgment was delivered on 24th January, 1994 - nearly five years after the hearing was concluded,
and this long delay in delivery of judgment by itself is sufficient to set
aside the judgment under appeal. Learned Attorney General has also relied upon
decision of the Court in the case of Kanwar Sinsk and others vs. Sri Thakurii
Mahany - 1995 Supp (4) SCC 125. At present, we are not deposed to go into this
broad question as urged by the learned Attorney General.
However,
it is correct to this extent that long delay in delivery of judgment gives rise
to unnecessary speculations in the mind of parties to a case. Moreover, the
appellants whose appeals have been dismissed by the High Court may have the
apprehension that the arguments raised at the bar have not been reflected or
appreciated while dictating the judgment - nearly after five years. This is
fairly not disputed by learned senior counsel, Shri K. Parasaran, appearing for
respondent No. 1. We, therefore, on this short question, set aside the judgment
under appeal without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and remit
the case to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh, on merits. In view
of the fact, that the matter has been pending for a considerable period of
time, we request the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously, if
possible, within six months.
Before
we part with the case, we would like to observe that when this appeal was filed
in this Court, the interim relief prayed for by the appellants was refused. As
a consequence, respondent No. 2 executed a sale deed in favour of respondent
No. I, and respondent No. I came in possession of the property and since then,
he continues to be in possession. Under such circumstances, respondent No.I
being the lawful owner, so long the decree remains intact, is entitled to
continue in possession over the property in dispute. Learned Attorney General
urged that, incase respondent No. I is to continue in possession over the
property, the interest of the appellants may also to be protected. It is then,
learned counsel for the parties made an agreed stetement that during the
pendency of the appeal before the High Court respondent No. I shall not create
any third party right in respect of the property in dispute and further shall
deposit the rent/income received from that property in the High Court after
deducting the maintenance charges and tax liabilities which shall be subject to
the decision of the appeal in the High Court. We order accordingly.
The
appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. All the 1. As are
disposed of accordingly.
Back
