2005 (5) TMI 679 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conflict between judgments in Kartar Singh vs. Harjinder Singh and Rachakonda Narayana vs. Ponthala Parvathamma.
2. Authority of the Appellant to enter into the agreement on behalf of his sister.
3. Omission of specific Khasra numbers in the plaint.
4. Application for amendment of the plaint.
5. Applicability of Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
6. Discretionary jurisdiction of the court in granting specific performance.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conflict between judgments in Kartar Singh vs. Harjinder Singh and Rachakonda Narayana vs. Ponthala Parvathamma:
A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a three-Judge Bench due to a purported conflict between the judgments in Kartar Singh vs. Harjinder Singh and Rachakonda Narayana vs. Ponthala Parvathamma. The conflict revolved around the applicability of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in cases where a party to an agreement could not perform the whole contract.

2. Authority of the Appellant to enter into the agreement on behalf of his sister:
The appellant entered into an agreement to sell land on behalf of himself and his sister. The trial court dismissed the suit for specific performance, accepting the plea that the appellant was not authorized to enter into the agreement on behalf of his sister. The High Court, however, granted a decree for specific performance for the appellant's share of the property, allowing him to apply for partition to get his share demarcated.

3. Omission of specific Khasra numbers in the plaint:
The trial court dismissed the suit partly because two Khasra numbers were not included in the plaint. The High Court allowed an amendment to include these Khasra numbers, stating that the omission was inadvertent and the trial court should not have dismissed the application on technical grounds.

4. Application for amendment of the plaint:
The plaintiffs-Respondents filed an application to amend the plaint to include the omitted Khasra numbers and to seek specific performance for the appellant's share of the property. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to allow the amendment, stating that such an application can be filed at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate stage.

5. Applicability of Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:
Section 12(3) allows for specific performance of part of a contract if the other party relinquishes claims for the unperformed part and any compensation for the deficiency. The Supreme Court held that the relinquishment of claims need not be specifically pleaded and can be made at any stage of litigation. The court found that the High Court correctly applied Section 12(3) in granting specific performance for the appellant's share of the property.

6. Discretionary jurisdiction of the court in granting specific performance:
The Supreme Court emphasized that discretionary jurisdiction must be exercised reasonably based on the facts of each case. The court noted that the plaintiffs-Respondents had paid the consideration amount, and the appellant had misled them regarding his authority to sell his sister's share. The court held that equity favored granting specific performance for the appellant's share rather than refusing it. The appeal was dismissed, and the decree for specific performance was upheld.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decree for specific performance of the contract for the appellant's share of the property. The court allowed the amendment of the plaint to include the omitted Khasra numbers and held that Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, was applicable. The court emphasized the need for equitable considerations in exercising discretionary jurisdiction.