2002 (5) TMI 865 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Right to claim decree of specific performance.
2. Maintainability of the suit without obtaining leave of the Court.
3. Readiness and willingness of the plaintiff.
4. Entitlement to the equitable relief of specific performance.
5. Applicability of Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. Applicability of Letters Patent of Madras High Court.
7. Procedural and jurisdictional laws post-State Reorganization.

Summary:

1. Right to Claim Decree of Specific Performance:
The subordinate Judge of Calicut dismissed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale of Sangam and Pushpa theaters. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court delivered two separate judgments with differing opinions on the plaintiff's entitlement to a decree of specific performance. One judge dismissed the appeals, while the other allowed them.

2. Maintainability of the Suit Without Obtaining Leave of the Court:
The main issue was whether the property being custodia legis through the Receiver appointed by the Court made the suit maintainable without obtaining leave of the Court. This was an additional ground to grant or refuse the decree of specific performance.

3. Readiness and Willingness of the Plaintiff:
The related issues of fact included the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to obtain the sale in due time and the entitlement to the equitable relief of specific performance.

4. Entitlement to Equitable Relief of Specific Performance:
The Division Bench delivered separate judgments and confirmed the decree of the subordinate court under Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as no point of difference on law was stated.

5. Applicability of Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was applied, confirming the decree of the subordinate court due to the lack of a majority opinion varying or reversing the decree appealed from.

6. Applicability of Letters Patent of Madras High Court:
The argument that Clause 36 of the Letters Patent of Madras High Court should be invoked was rejected. The court held that the Letters Patent of Madras High Court was not applicable to the new State of Kerala, and the procedural provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Act and Kerala Act were not Letters Patent.

7. Procedural and Jurisdictional Laws Post-State Reorganization:
The court examined the provisions of the States Reorganization Act, 1956, and concluded that the law relating to practice, procedure, and powers of judges of the High Court of the corresponding State (Travancore-Cochin) would apply to the new State of Kerala. The Kerala Act had an overriding effect from its enforcement date, and Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being a special law, prevailed over the general law contained in the Travancore-Cochin Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no ground to grant special leave to appeal against the impugned common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala. The Special Leave Petitions were rejected without any orders as to costs.