Holding

The agreement to sell is genuine and enforceable, but equity under Section 20 requires the respondents to pay an additional Rs.5,00,000 plus the balance Rs.1,10,000, after which the sale deed must be executed and possession transferred, and the claim of adverse possession is rejected.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard two civil appeals arising from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land dated 24 April 1982 for Rs.1,20,000, of which Rs.10,000 had been paid as advance. The Court held that the agreement was genuine and binding, but given the 25-year lapse and the substantial increase in property value, it would be inequitable to enforce the sale at the original price under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to pay an additional Rs.5,00,000 together with the balance Rs.1,10,000, after which the appellants must execute the sale deed and hand over vacant possession. The claim of the appellants that they had acquired title by adverse possession was rejected as they were found to be in only permissible possession, and an eviction order was issued. The appeals were disposed of, affirming the lower courts' findings but modifying the relief to reflect equitable considerations.

Issues considered

Whether the 1982 agreement to sell for Rs.1,20,000 is genuine and binding on all parties.
Whether the defendants claiming adverse possession had perfected title over the suit property.
Whether specific performance can be granted under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act given the long lapse of time and increase in property value.
Whether the decree for specific performance should be modified to adjust the consideration payable.
Whether the appellants in adverse possession can be evicted and possession handed over to the respondents.

Legislation cited

Specific Relief Act, 1963s. 20

Subjects

Specific performanceAgreement to sellSection 20EquityAdverse possessionPermissible possessionReal estate valuationDecree modification

Judgment

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 854

A PRATAP LAKSHMAN MUCHANDI AND ORS. ~-

v.
SHAMLAL UDDAVADAS WADHWA AND ORS.
(C.A. No. 666 of 2002)
JANUARY 18, 2008
B
[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s. 20 - Agreement to sell •
properly executed in 1982 for consideration of Rs.1,20,0001-
c - Vendor received Rs.10,0001- as advance money- Suit for
specific performance by vendee - Decreed by Trial Coult -
Order upheld by High Court - On appeal, held: Since
agreement for sale was genuine, decree passed by Trial Coult
was justified - However, in view of long passage of time and
D steep increase in value of properly since 1982, vendee
directed to pay the vendor Rs. 5 lakhs in addition to balance
consideration of Rs.1, 10,0001- - On such payment, vendor ""
directed to execute sale deed and hand over vacant
possession to vendee - Occupation of cerlain other persons
who claimed the property in question by way of adverse
E possesssion found to be in the nature of permissible
possession - Direction issued for their eviction - Equity
The predecessor-in-interest of the Appellants in
C.A.No.728 of 2002 had executed an agreement to sell in
F respect of certain land property for a consideration of > ...
Rs.1,20,000/- and was paid Rs.10,000 as advance money.
As sale deed in respect of the said property was not
executed within the stipulated time, Respondent-vendee
filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to
G sell. Trial Court decreed the suit and also directed eviction
of the appellants in C.A.No.666 of 2002 who claimed the
-+ ..
property in question by way of adverse possession. High
Court upheld both the orders of Trial Court. Hence the
present appeals.
H 854
PRATAP LAKSHMAN MUCHANDI & ORS. v. SHAMLAL 855
UDDAVADAS WADHWA & ORS.

Disposing of the appeals and the connected A
·~
contempt petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1. As per the evidence on record, it is
apparent that the agreement to sell in question was for
the purpose of family necessity only and it does not lie in
the mouth of the sons i.e. the Appellants in C.A. No. 728 of B
2002 to deny the agreement to sell for which a sum of
Rs.10,000/- was already received. The Courts below have
correctly appreciated the testimony and rightly reached
the conclusion that the agreement to sell was for
Rs.1,20,000/- only. So far as the allegation of interpolation c
in the document in question i.e. agreement to sell was
concerned, it was sent for examination by the Handwriting
expert, and the report of the expert was received and the
same was accepted. The opinion of expert was that there
is erasure but not tampering with the document. The D
document in question is genuine and has been rightly
acted upon by both the Courts below; [Para 7) [861-B-E]
"'
1.2. The agreement to sell was executed way back in
the year 1982. Since thereafter, the value of the real estate
has shot up very high, therefore, while exercising E
jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963 it would be equitable to not allow the sale of property
to be executed for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. The litigation
has prolonged for almost 25 years and now at last reached
the end of the journey. Therefore, to settle the equity F
... ~.

between the parties, it is directed that though the
agreement to sell was genuine and it was executed for
bona fide necessity but because of passage of time, the
respondents shall pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs in addition to
Rs.1, 10,000/- as out of Rs.1,20,000/-, Rs.10,000/- has G
already been paid as advance. On receipt of Rs.1,10,000/
.. + - and Rs.5 lacs [Rs.6,10,000/-) the appellants in C.A. No.
728 of 2002 shall execute the sale deed for the property in
question. [Para 8) [861-G-H; 862-A-B]
H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A 1.3. The appellants in C.A. No. 666 of 2002 had
claimed the property in question by way of adverse
possession but neither before the trial court nor before
the High Court they could show any justification for the
possession of the property in question. The occupation
B of the appellants in C.A.No.666 of 2002 was at- best a
permissible possession and, since this Court is enforcing
the agreement to sell and directing the appellants in
C.A.No.728 of 2002 to execute the sale deed in respect of
the property in question in favour of the respondent-
C plaintiff, one cannot permit the appellants in C.A. No. 666
of 2002 to continue in possession of the property in
question. In order to put quietus to the whole litigation
and in order to do complete justice, it is directed that the
appellants in C.A.No.728 of 2002 shall hand over
possession of the property in question to the respondent-
0
plai ntiffs in the event of the latter paying a sum of
Rs.1,10,000/, and over and above a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
i.e. Rs.6,10,000/- within a period of three months. [Para 9]
[862-D-H; 863-A-B]
E V. Pechimuthu v. Gowrammal (2001) 7 SCC 617;
Swarnam Ramachandran (Smt) & Anr. v. Aravacode
Chakunga/ Jayapa/an (2004) 8 SCC 689; S. V.R.Mudaliar
(Dead) by LRs. & Ors. v. Rajabu F. Buhari (Mrs.) (Dead) by
LRs. & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 15; P.C. Varghese v. Devaki Amma
F Balambika Devi & Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 486 and Mohd. Hanif
(deceased by Lrs) & Ors. v. Mariam Begum & Ors. AIR 1986
Born. 15 - referred to.
Tasker v. Small 1824-34 All ER 317 - referred to.
G CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.666
of 2002.
-t ..
From the final Judgment and Order dated 17.12.1999 of
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RF.A. No. 290 of
1993.
H WITH
PRATAP LAKSHMAN MUCHANDI & ORS: v. SHAMLAL 857
UDDAVADAS WADHWA & ORS. [A.K. MATHUR, J.]
-"'t A
C.A. No. 728 of 2002,
C.P. (C) No. 52 of 2006 in C.A. No. 728 of 2002 &
C.P. (C) No. 58 of 2006 in C.A. NO. 666 of 2002

K. Rarnamoorthy and Raju Ramachandran, R.S. Hegde,
Chandra Prakash, Rahul Tyagi, J.K. Nayyar, K.K. Mani and P.P. B
Singh for the Appellants.

Mathai M. Paikeday, Shishir Pinaki, Sanjay Jain and P.
Narasimhan for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
A.K. MATHUR, J. 1. Both the Civil Appeals arise against
the order passed by the Karnataka High Court in RFA Nos.290
& 311of1993 dated 17.12.1999. Therefore, both the appeals
are disposed of by a common order.
D
.. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of
these appeals are that a suit was filed on the basis of an
agreement to sell dated 24.4.1982 for a consideration of
Rs.1,20,000/- for property, namely, open space with some
dilapidated room bearing CTS No.4094/1 B/2 ad measuring 4 72
square yards, College Road, Belgaum. The agreement was
E
executed by the first defendant as the 'Kartha' of Hindu joint
family along with other defendant Nos.2 to 4. A sum of
Rs.10,000/- was pciid as advance and the agreement was to
_. be concluded within six months. As the defendants did not
execute the sale deed within the stipulated time, a suit was filed F
by the plaintiff after giving notice dated 10.5.1983 for
enforcement of the agreement to sell. The defendant Nos.1 to 5
also filed a suit being O.S.No.236of1982 for injunction against
defendant Nos.6 to 15 and took a plea that because of the

~~
pendency of their suit, they could not execute the sale deed and G
they would execute the sale deed after decree in their favour
was passed. The plaintiff suspected their movements and,
therefore, he filed the present suit. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed a
common written statement admitting the joint Hindu family
consisting of defendant Nos.1 to 4. But they denied that the 1st H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A defendant was the Kartha of the family. They admitted that the
suit property was an ancestral property and they were the
absolute owners. They also denied the agreement to sell and
receipt of the advance. They further took a plea that they agreed
to sell the property for a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- at the first instance
B and the deed of the agreement was typed and signed by the
parties and the earnest money in sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid
and they were willing to sell the property for a sum of Rs.1,70,000/
- and as the plaintiff did not pay the balance sum, therefore, the
sale deed could not be executed. The defendant No.4 was a
c minor when the suit was instituted, but became major during
the pendency of the suit and he denied that the defendant No.1
was his natural guardian. The defendant No.5 also claimed 1/
5th share in the property. The defendant No.1 died during the
pendency of the suit and his other daughter was brought on
D record as defendant No.1 (a). She also filed a written statement
denying the agreement of sale. Defendant No.6 contended that
there was no collusion between the defendant Nos. 6 to 15 and
defendant Nos.1 to 4. They also contended that the agreement
cannot be enforced as against them as defendant Nos.1 to 5
were never in possession of the suit property. Defendant Nos.6
E . to 15 claimed the ownership by way of adverse possession and
claimed to be in such exclusive possession from the year 1957
onwards with the knowledge of defendant Nos.1 to 5. Therefore,
it was contended that the agreement of sale was not enforceable
because of the laches on the part of the plaintiff. On the basis of
F these pleadings, nine issues were framed and then three more
additional issues were framed. The Trial Court after analyzing
the evidence decreed the suit and directed the defendant Nos.
1(a) to 5 to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff by
receiving the balance consideration of Rs.1, 10,000/- and hand
G over possession, at the same time, a decree was passed
evicting the defendant Nos.6 to 15 from the premises in question.
The Trial Court further directed defendant Nos.6 to 15 to hand
over the possession to the plaintiff. Aggrieved against this
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, two appeals
H were preferred before the High Court. Both the appeals were
PRATAP LAKSHMAN MUCHANDI & ORS. v. SHAMLAL 859
UDDAVADAS WADHWA & ORS. [A.K. MATHUR, J.]
-t taken up together. The grievance of defendant Nos. 1 to 5 was A
that the agreement of sale was not proved and appeal by another
batch of persons who were directed to be evicted from the
premises in question and to hand over the possession, was
filed, i.e. Appeal No.311 of 1883 and Appeal No.290 of 1993.
Both these appeals were tagged together. B
3. The High Court again reviewed the evidence and while
hearing the appeals, it felt that document executed by P.W.1
contained some corrections or erasure. Consequently, the
document was sent for the expert opinion and after receipt of
the report of the Assistant Director (questioned document), c
Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore, evidence of erasure
was found and subsequent typing of figures of Rs.1,20,000/-
was detected. Both the parties were directed to file their
objection to the report of the Handwriting Expert. The High Court
framed following two questions, viz.; D
"(i) Whether the agreement of sale is true and binding on
all the defendants ?
(ii) Whether the defendants 6 to 15 perfected their title
over suit property by way of adverse possession?" E
4. The High Court, after review of the evidence came to
the conclusion that because of the legal necessity as admitted
by the defendants, an agreement of sale was executed for the
aforesaid property and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was taken as
advance. The High Court also observed that defendant No.1 F
was the Kartha of the family, who died and it was not open to his
sons to challenge that there was no family necessity for sale of
the property. So far as the agreement to sell was concerned,
the High Court also affirmed the finding of the trial court and did
not find any reason to take a different view of the matter. The G
High Court also affirmed that in fact, the agreement of sale was
' for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- and not for Rs.1, 70,000/- as alleged.
So far as the possession by the defendant Nos.6 to 15 was
concerned, the Trial Court as well as the High Court affirmed
that the plea of adverse possession was very vague and these H
-
"',,
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A persons were carrying on timber business in suit property and
t-
it was very difficult to hold that they perfected their title by way of
adverse possession. It was also observed that these persons
were in permissive possession. It was also found by both the
Courts below that there was no evidence to show that the title
8 was perfected by way of adverse possession. Consequently,
the High Court confirmed the finding of the Trial Court. Aggrieved
against this judgment, two appeals were filed and they were
tagged together, and are being disposed of by this common
.,. .
order.
c 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
findings given by both the Courts below cannot be accepted
and in support thereof, learned counsel i.nvited our attention to .,__
a number of decisions of this Court i.e. V.Pechimuthu v.
Gowrammal [(2001) 7 SCC 617]; Swamam Ramachandran
D (Smt) & Anr. V. Aravacode Chakungal Jayapa/an [(2004) 8
SCC 689]; S. VR.Mudaliar (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. V. Rajabu ).-

F Buhari (Mrs.) (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. [(1995) 4 SCC 15] & '
PC. Varghese v. Devaki Amma Ba/ambika Devi & Ors. [(2005)
8 sec 486]. Mr. K.Ramamoorthy, learned senior counsel
...
E appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal No.666 of 2002 ~

submitted that both the Courts below could not have passed an
eviction decree against the appellants in these very proceedings I-
as they were claiming the property by way of adverse !IJ!!!
possession, and in support thereof, he has invited our attention
F to a decision of Bombay High Court in Mohd. Hanif (deceased
,.
by LRs) & Ors. V. Mariam Begum & Ors. [AIR 1986 Born. 15]
<
and an English decision in Tasker v. Small [1824-34 ALL ER
317].
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
G perused the record. As per the findings given by both the Courts . ·.
..

below it is clear that the agreement to sell was entered into for
family necessity and the same was agreed by the father of the
t
" ~

defendant though the father died during the course of the
pendency of the suit. Therefore, he could not be examined. -:
7t.~
H Learned counsel has submitted that the appreciation done by ,
PRATAP LAKSHMAN MUCHANDI & ORS. v. SHAMLAL 861
, UDDAVADAS WADHWA & ORS. [A.K. MATHUR, J.]
--'i both the Courts below is not correct and in fact the property was A
not ag!"eed to be sold for Rs.1,20,000/- but the consideration
money was Rs.1, 70,000/- and the appellants themselves were
not willing to pay the remaining amount. Hence he submitted
that the agreement to sell cannot be executed.
7. We have examined the record and found that as per the B
evidence on record what is apparent is that the agreement to
sell in question was for the purpose of family necessity only and
it does not lie in the mouth of the sons to deny the agreement to
sell for which a sum of Rs.10,000/- was already received. After
going through the evidence also we are of opinion that the Courts c
below have correctly appreciated the testimony and rightly
reached the conclusion that the agreement to sell was for
Rs.1,20,000/- only. So far as the allegation of interpolation in
.. the document in question i.e. agreement to sell was concerned,
it was sent for examination by the Handwriting expert, and the D
-i report of the expert was received and the same was accepted.
The opinion of expert was that there is erasure but not tampering
with the document. The document in question is genuine and
has been rightly acted upon by both the Courts below. In this
connection, learned counsel invited our attention to various E
decisions referred to above but that does not make any
difference in the matter because factually we are satisfied that
the agreement to sell was executed for family necessity.
Therefore, the various decisions referred to by learned counsel
,
+ for the appellants do not take the case of the appellants any far. F
Hence we are of opinion that the agreement to sell was executed
for family necessity and the appellants cannot get out of it.
8. But at the same time it is also true that the agreement to
sell was executed way back in the year 1982. Since after 1982
much water has flown under the bridge, the value of the real G
" t estate has shoot up very high, therefore, while exercising our
jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
we would like to be equitable and would not allow the sale of
property to be executed for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-. The litigation
has prolonged for almost 25 years and now at last reached at H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.

A the end of the journey. Therefore, we have to settle the equity
between the parties. We hold that the agreement to sell was
genuine and it was executed for bona fide necessity but because
of passage of time we direct that the respondents shall pay a
sum of Rs.5 lacs in addition to Rs.1, 10,000/- as out of
B Rs.1,20,000/-, Rs.10,000/- has already been paid as advance.
On receipt of Rs.1, 10,000/- and Rs.5 lacs [Rs.6, 10,000/-] the
appellants shall execute the sale deed for the property in
question.
9. Mr. Ramamoorthy, learned senior counsel for the
C appellants in C.A.No.666 of 2002 submitted that in this appeal
an order of eviction cannot be passed and in support of that
invited our attention to a decision of Bombay High Court in
Mohd. Hanif (deceased by Lrs) & Ors. V. Mariam Begum &
Ors. [AIR 1986 Born. 15] and English decision in Taskerv. Small
D [1824-34 All ER 317]. It is true that the appellants in this appeal
claimed the property in question by way of adverse possession
but neither before the trial court nor before the High Court the
appellants could show any justification for the possession of
the property in question. We also asked Mr.Ramamoorthy under
J
E what legal sanction the appellants are in possession of the
premises in question. He has failed to point out anything except
by way of permissible possession by the appellants in
C.A.No.666 of 2002. Therefore, the occupation of these
appellants in C.A.No.666 of 2002 was at best a permissible ·
F possession and now that we are enforcing the agreement to
sell and direct the appellants in C.A.No.728 of 2002 to execute
the sale deed in respect of the property in question in favour of
the respondent-plaintiff,we cannot permit the appellants to
continue in possession of the property in question. Apart from
G this in order to put quietus to the whole litigation it would be just
and proper that the appellants in C.A.No.728 of 2002 should 1 •
be directed to hand over the vacant possession of the property
in question to the respondent-plaintiffs on payment of a sum of
Rs.6, 10,000/- [Rs.5,00,000/- + Rs.1, 10,000/-] to the appellants.
H Vve cannot leave the matter again for another round of litigation
PRATAP LAKSHMAN MUCHANDI & ORS. v. SHAMLAL 863
UDDAVADAS WADHWA & ORS. [A.K. MATHUR, J.]

as otherwise the respondent-plaintiff will have to file another A
case for taking possession of the property in question and it will
take another decade or so. Therefore, in order to do complete
justice, it is directed that the appellants in C.A.No.728 of 2002
shall hand over the possession of the property in question to
the respondent-plaintiffs in the event of the respondent-plaintiffs 8
paying a sum of Rs.1, 10,000/-, the original amount agreed in
the agreement for sale and over and above a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- i.e. Rs.6, 10,000/- within a period of three months
from today and on receipt of the aforesaid amount, the
appellants in C.A.No.728 of2002 shall hand over the possession c
of the premises in question. In case the appellants fail to hand
over the possession of the property in question, the respondent-
plaintiff may resort to the help of the police authorities for taking
vacant possession of the property in question.
10. As a result of our above discussion, both the appeals D
are disposed of with no order as to costs.
11. Since we have disposed of the civil appeals as
indicated above, the contempt petitions are also disposed of in
the light of the above order.
E
8.8.8. Appeals and Contempt Petitions
disposed of.

,.. 1