Summary
A purchaser challenged reversal of a specific-performance decree despite the vendor admitting the agreement and substantial advance payment. The Court restored the decree, holding that the High Court had ignored admissions, framed issues and evidence establishing the later related-party sale deeds as nominal. Lack of a separate cancellation prayer did not justify reversal in those circumstances. The trial court’s exercise of discretion was sustained and the appeal allowed without costs.
Issues
- Whether the admitted sale agreement and payment, together with findings concerning the later sale deeds, justified specific performance.
- Whether absence of a separate cancellation prayer prevented relief concerning subsequent transfers already tried on specific issues.
Provisions considered
- Section 20, as applicable to the dispute before the 2018 substitution, Specific Relief Act, 1963The trial court’s discretionary grant was justified by the admissions and proved facts, rather than defeated by nominal subsequent transfers. (¶ 5.8)
- Section 34, Specific Relief Act, 1963The High Court’s reliance was misplaced where the effect of the later deeds had been specifically put in issue, tried and determined. (¶¶ 5.3, 5.7)
Held
- The vendor’s admissions established execution of the agreement and receipt of the substantial advance without further proof of those facts. The High Court erred in reopening those matters while overlooking the trial court’s findings. (¶ 5.1-5.2)
- Specific issues concerning the later sale deeds were framed and evidence was led. The trial court found them nominal and their alleged consideration unproved. Absence of a separate cancellation prayer did not justify setting aside the determination that they did not bind the plaintiff and vendor in these circumstances. (¶¶ 5.3-5.5, 5.7)
- The proper form of specific-performance relief recognised in Durga Prasad directs performance by the vendor and requires the subsequent transferee to join the conveyance to pass the title residing in that transferee, without joining the vendor’s special covenants. (¶ 5.6)
- The attorney knew of the earlier agreement but made the nominal transfers to his sisters-in-law. Those transfers furnished no valid reason to displace the trial court’s grant of specific performance on the admitted and proved facts. (¶¶ 5.4-5.5, 5.8)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court’s judgment was quashed and the trial court’s judgment and decree restored. No costs.