2013 (4) TMI 976 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Readiness and willingness of the Appellant/Plaintiff to perform the contract.
2. Validity of the High Court's judgment under Order XLI Rule 31 Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Competence of the GPA holder to depose in place of the principal.
4. Notice of the agreement to subsequent purchasers.
5. Entitlement of the Appellant to receive compensation.

Summary:

1. Readiness and Willingness of the Appellant/Plaintiff to Perform the Contract:

The trial court concluded that the Appellant/Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, as evidenced by his financial capacity and actions such as paying non-agricultural assessment tax. The High Court, however, found that the Appellant/Plaintiff did not take steps to establish his readiness and willingness, citing inordinate delay in filing the suit and lack of effort to pay the balance amount. The Supreme Court found the High Court's conclusion perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, noting that the Appellant/Plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.

2. Validity of the High Court's Judgment under Order XLI Rule 31 Code of Civil Procedure:

The High Court failed to consider all issues as required under Order XLI Rule 31 Code of Civil Procedure, focusing only on the Appellant/Plaintiff's readiness and willingness without addressing other issues such as whether subsequent purchasers were bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was flawed for not adhering to the procedural requirements.

3. Competence of the GPA Holder to Depose in Place of the Principal:

The Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal proposition that a power of attorney (GPA) holder cannot depose in place of the principal for acts done by the principal. The GPA holder can only depose for acts done by him in exercise of the power granted by the instrument. The High Court's reliance on the GPA holder's testimony was thus misplaced.

4. Notice of the Agreement to Subsequent Purchasers:

The trial court found that except for Respondent No. 6, other subsequent purchasers were aware of the agreement between the Appellant and Res. No. 1. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the Appellant was not willing to disturb the possession of Defendant No. 6, who had no notice of the agreement.

5. Entitlement of the Appellant to Receive Compensation:

The Supreme Court held that the Appellant, not having acquired any title over the land, had no right to receive compensation amounting to Rs. 29,47,112/-. The Appellant was directed to refund the compensation amount to Res. No. 1 within three months, along with 9% interest from the date of receipt till the date of payment.

Conclusion:

The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's judgment. The Appellant was entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered for the available suit land, excluding the land acquired and the land purchased by Respondent No. 6. The Appellant was also directed to refund the compensation amount received. Consequently, Civil Appeal Nos. 2888 and 4459 of 2005 were dismissed.