1995 (4) TMI 295 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Genuineness of Ex.P1.
2. Whether Kamal was an agent of the defendants.
3. Whether Mrs. Buhari was a benamidar (name lender) of Mr. Buhari.
4. Whether the relief of specific performance is called for, given the assignment of the right by the successors-in-interest of the plaintiff to third persons.

Detailed Analysis:

Genuineness of Ex.P1
The Letters Patent Bench of the High Court doubted the genuineness of Ex.P1, primarily because Exs.P.2 and P.3 did not mention any stipulation regarding reconveyance. The appellate court was not satisfied with the evidence presented by the plaintiff, which included testimonies from the plaintiff and his agent Narayana Iyer. The trial Judge, however, found Ex.P1 to be genuine, noting that the plaintiff's explanation for the lack of mention in Exs.P.2 and P.3 was credible. The plaintiff testified that his legal advisor, Rangachari, had advised against including the reconveyance stipulation in the sale deeds. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial Judge, finding Ex.P1 to be a genuine document.

Whether Kamal was an Agent of the Defendants
The trial Judge believed Kamal, who signed Ex.P1, was an agent of the defendants. The Judge even attempted to examine Kamal as a court witness, but Kamal was allegedly kept away by the defendants, leading to an adverse inference against them. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not adequately address the trial Judge's reasoning and found that Kamal, who signed Ex.P1, was indeed the same Kamal employed by the defendants. The Court concluded that Kamal acted as an agent of the defendants.

Whether Mrs. Buhari was a Benamidar of Mr. Buhari
The trial Judge found in favor of the plaintiff on this issue, but the Division Bench did not find it necessary to address this aspect. The Supreme Court also chose not to give a finding on this matter, as it was satisfied with the genuineness of Ex.P1 and Kamal's agency, making the understanding recorded in Ex.P1 binding on the defendants. The Court noted that Mr. Buhari's consent, given his leading role, should be regarded as binding on Mrs. Buhari.

Whether the Relief of Specific Performance is Called For
The Supreme Court found that the agreement recorded in Ex.P1 created a legal obligation, making it enforceable. The Court rejected the respondents' argument that the agreement was merely a "gentleman's understanding" without legal consequences. The Court also dismissed the argument that the lapse of time and the rise in property prices should prevent the granting of specific performance. It noted that the delay was not caused by the plaintiff and that rising property prices should not typically weigh against granting specific performance. The Court further rejected the argument that the assignment of the right to third parties should prevent specific performance, noting that the assignees were properly impleaded and that their actions were not champertous. The Court concluded that the respondents' conduct, including their attempts to suppress evidence, did not warrant denying specific performance.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Letters Patent Bench, and restored the trial Judge's decree for specific performance. The respondents or their successors-in-interest were ordered to reconvey the property within one month, failing which the trial Judge could execute the required documents. The parties were left to bear their own costs throughout.