Summary
A purchaser placed in possession under a sale agreement later lost his specific-performance suit and appeal. In the owners’ separate possession action, the Court upheld recovery of the land and, using Article142, required refund of the admitted earnest money as well as restoration of possession within three months.
Issues
- What effect final dismissal of the purchaser’s specific-performance proceedings had on continued possession.
- Whether complete justice warranted refund of the admitted earnest money while enforcing possession.
Held
- On these facts, after dismissal of the specific-performance suit and appeal, the purchaser could no longer retain possession against the owners or rely on section53A protection. The Court considered the effect of that dismissal without reopening its correctness in this separate appeal. (¶ 17–22)
- The respondents’ ownership was not disputed, and the purchaser had not challenged the declaration in their favour. Their possession decree was upheld. (¶¶ 11, 20–22)
- To conclude the long litigation, the Court invoked Article142 and directed return of the admittedRs1,00,000 earnest money alongside restoration of possession. Interest would follow only failure to refund within the stipulated period. (¶ 23–27)
Result
Appeal disposed of with possession decree upheld and further directions: respondents to refundRs1,00,000 within three months, failing which6percent annual interest applies until payment; appellant to restore vacant possession within three months of the judgment.