SUKHBIRversusAJIT SINGH

                          [2021] 4 S.C.R. 169                             169


                             SUKHBIR                                      A
                                  v.
                            AJIT SINGH
                   (Civil Appeal No. 1653 of 2021)
                              APRIL 30, 2021                              B
          [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                            M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
        Specific Relief Act, 1963: s.21 – Power to award compensation
– Agreement to sell land – Plaintiff-purchaser paid Rs.31.5 lakhs
out of Rs.32 lakhs – Failure on part of defendant to execute sale         C
deed in terms of the agreement of sale – Suit for specific performance
– During pendency of suit, land in question acquired under Land
Acquisition Act – Trial court passed decree for specific performance
directing defendant to execute sale deed on receiving balance
consideration – First appellate court upheld the order of trial court     D
– High Court held that plaintiff shall be deemed to have stepped
into the shoes of the defendant-original land owner and shall be
entitled to entire amount of compensation along with solatium and
interest etc. owing to the acquisition of the land in question – On
appeal, held: There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by all
the courts below on the execution of the agreement to sell by the         E
defendant in favour of the plaintiff; payment of Rs. 31.50 lakhs
towards part sale consideration and the readiness and willingness
of the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/
- – Therefore, as such, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for
specific performance – However, in view of the fact that before the       F
final decree could be passed by trial court, the land in question
came to be acquired and, therefore, plaintiff would be deemed to be
in the shoes of the defendant and shall be entitled to the amount of
compensation, determined and awarded under the Land Acquisition
Act – Submission of defendant has no substance that as
compensation was not specifically prayed by the plaintiff in the          G
suit, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any amount of compensation
even considering s.21 of the Specific Relief Act – The decree for
compensation is passed as an alternate decree and in lieu of the
decree for specific performance – High Court rightly held that the
plaintiff shall be entitled to the entire amount of compensation
                                                                          H
                                    169
170            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 4 S.C.R.


A     awarded together with interest and solatium – However, at the same
      time, the defendant-original land owner shall also be entitled to the
      deduction therefrom of money value of the services, time and energy
      expended in pursuing the claims of compensation and the
      expenditure incurred by him in the litigation culminating in the
      award.
B
            Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1.1 There are concurrent findings of fact recorded
      by all the courts below on the execution of the agreement to sell
      by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff; payment of
C     Rs. 31,50,000/- towards part sale consideration by the plaintiff to
      the defendant (out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 32 lakhs)
      and the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to pay the balance
      sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, as such, the plaintiff
      shall be entitled to the decree for specific performance. However,
      in view of the fact that before the final decree could be passed by
D     the trial court, the land in question came to be acquired under
      the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore the
      question arose before the High Court what relief the plaintiff shall
      be entitled to in the event the decree of specific performance is
      required to be modified by an alternative decree. [Para 7][175-
E     H; 176-A-C]
            1.2 Applying the law laid down by this Court in Jagdish Singh
      and Urmila Devi to the facts of the case in hand, it cannot be said
      that the High Court has committed any error in modifying the
      decree for specific performance. As rightly held by the High Court,
F     as such, the plaintiff will be deemed to be in the shoes of the
      defendant and therefore shall be entitled to the amount of
      compensation, determined and awarded under the provisions of
      the Land Acquisition Act. [Para 9][178-B-C]
            Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh (1992) 1 SCC 647 :
G           [1991] 2 Suppl. SCR 567; Urmila Devi v. Deity, Mandir
            Shree Chamunda Devi (2018) 2 SCC 284 : [2018] 1
            SCR 797 – relied on.
            2. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant
      that as compensation has not been specifically prayed by the
H
                     SUKHBIR v. AJIT SINGH                                 171


plaintiff in the suit, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any amount   A
of compensation even considering Section 21 of the Specific Relief
Act. The aforesaid has no substance. The decree for compensation
is passed as an alternate decree and in lieu of the decree for
specific performance. [Para 10][178-C-D]
      3. Now so far as the amount of compensation is concerned,            B
as observed by this Court in the case of Jagdish Singh, the
compensation determined and awarded under the Land
Acquisition Act may safely be taken into consideration. Therefore,
the High Court has rightly observed and held that the plaintiff
shall be entitled to the entire amount of compensation awarded
under the Land Acquisition Act together with interest and                  C
solatium. However, at the same time, the defendant – original
land owner shall also be entitled to the deduction therefrom of
money value of the services, time and energy expended in
pursuing the claims of compensation and the expenditure incurred
by him in the litigation culminating in the award. As such, nothing        D
is on record to suggest that any expenses have been incurred by
the appellant. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
case and considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of
Jagdish Singh and Urmila Devi, ends of justice will be served if
the plaintiff is awarded the entire amount of compensation
determined under the Land Acquisition Act together with interest           E
and solatium less Rs. 2,50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- (towards the
balance sale consideration). [Para 11][178-D-H]
                        Case Law Reference
[1991] 2 Suppl. SCR 567          relied on                Para 3.1         F
[2018] 1 SCR 797                 relied on                Para 6
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1653
of 2021.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2016 of the High Court
                                                                           G
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 4848 of 2016.
      Sushil Sardana, Shafik Ahmed, Kaushal Yadav, Advs. for the
Appellant.
      Rakesh Talukdar, Abhimanyu Tewari, Ankit Jaglan, Ashray Chopra,
Advs. for the Respondent.                                                  H
172             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 4 S.C.R.


A            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             M. R. SHAH, J.
             1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and
      Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 4848/2016, by which the High
B     Court has disposed of the said second appeal modifying the judgment
      and decree for specific performance qua agreement to sell which was
      in favour of the original plaintiff to the extent holding that the respondent-
      original plaintiff shall be deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the
      vendor and shall be entitled to the entire amount of compensation along
C     with solatium and interest etc. owing to the acquisition of the land, the
      original defendant has preferred the present appeal.
             2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
             That an agreement to sell was executed by the appellant – original
      defendant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘defendant’) in favour of the
D     respondent – original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’)
      on 9.3.2010 with respect to the land in question for a total sale
      consideration of Rs. 32 lakhs. That out of the total sale consideration of
      Rs. 32 lakhs, the plaintiff paid Rs. 31, 50,000/- to the defendant. That as
      per the agreement the sale deed was to be executed on 8.7.2010. Upon
E     failure of the defendant to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff served a
      legal notice dated 13.7.2020 requesting the defendant to remain present
      at Sub-Registrar’s office on 6.8.2010 to execute the sale deed. But instead
      of remaining present on the said date at the office of the Sub-Registrar,
      the defendant refused to do so on 4.8.2010. That thereafter the plaintiff
      instituted a suit on 5.8.2010 being Civil Suit No. RBT-34/2010 in the
F     Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jhajjar, Haryana for specific
      performance of the agreement to sell and to handover the possession of
      the land in question. By way of an alternative prayer, it was prayed for
      recovery of Rs. 31,50,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from
      9.3.2010 till the date of payment. That after the filing of the suit but
G     before passing of the final decree, the land in question came to be
      acquired by the acquiring body for which a notification under Section 6
      of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 6.7.2012. That the learned
      trial Court decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 19.12.2012
      and passed a decree for specific performance. That the learned trial
      Court specifically gave findings in favour of the plaintiff on the execution
H
             SUKHBIR v. AJIT SINGH [M. R. SHAH, J.]                               173


of the agreement to sell; readiness and willingness on the part of the            A
plaintiff. That the learned trial Court directed the defendant to execute
the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale
consideration of Rs. 50,000/- and handover the possession of the suit
property to the plaintiff. The judgment and decree passed by the learned
trial Court came to be affirmed by the learned first appellate court.
                                                                                  B
       At this stage, it is required to be noted that before the learned trial
court, it was not brought to the notice of the court that with respect to
the land in question a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act has been issued on 6.7.2012.
       3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree         C
passed by the learned trial Court, affirmed by the first appellate court,
the defendant preferred second appeal before the High Court being R.S.A.
No. 4848/2016. Before the High Court, it was submitted on behalf of the
defendant that in view of the fact that the land in question has been
acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the defendant
has no saleable right and interest in the suit property and therefore the         D
agreement to sell cannot be executed. Submissions on merits were also
made on behalf of the defendant on the findings recorded by the learned
trial court on execution of the agreement to sell by the defendant in
favour of the plaintiff; accepting Rs. 31,50,000/- by way of part sale
consideration; and readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff         E
to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/-.
       3.1 On behalf of the plaintiff, heavy reliance was placed on the
decision of this Court in the case of Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh,
(1992) 1 SCC 647. It was submitted that an identical situation had
arisen before this Court where during the pendency of the suit the land           F
in question was acquired and after considering Section 21 of he Specific
Relief Act it was held by this Court that the plaintiff is entitled to take all
the benefits of compensation along with interest and solatium, less the
cost of litigation incurred by the original land owner – vendor for recovery
of the amount of compensation.
                                                                                  G
       3.2 The High Court accepted the same and after following the
decision of this Court in the case of Jagdish Singh (supra), has modified
the judgment and decree for specific performance passed by the learned
trial Court, affirmed by the first appellate court and has held that the
plaintiff shall be deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the defendant
                                                                                  H
174             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 4 S.C.R.


A     – original land owner and shall be entitled to the entire amount of
      compensation along with solatium and interest etc., owing to the
      acquisition of the land in question. The High Court also affirmed the
      findings recorded by the courts below qua execution of the agreement
      to sell; and readiness and willingness which were in favour of the plaintiff.
B           4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order passed by the High Court, the original defendant has preferred
      the present appeal.
              5. Shri Sushil Sardana, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
      the defendant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and
C     circumstances of the case and more particularly when during the
      pendency of the suit the land in question came to be acquired under the
      provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the defendant had no saleable
      right and interest in the suit property and therefore no relief for specific
      performance of the agreement to sell could have been passed. It is
      submitted that in fact in the appeal preferred by the defendant – appellant
D     herein the High Court has modified the decree passed by the learned
      trial court, affirmed by the first appellate court, and held that in lieu of
      decree for specific performance, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the
      entire amount of compensation with solatium and interest.
             5.1 It is further submitted that in view of Section 21 of the Specific
E     Relief Act r/w Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, the plaintiff at the
      most shall be entitled to the refund of the amount of sale consideration
      paid with interest.
              5.2 It is further submitted that in the present case the plaintiff
      never claimed for any compensation. It is submitted that as per Section
F     21(1) of the Specific Relief Act if the contract is broken by the defendant,
      in that event, compensation may be granted, but again Section 21(5)
      says that no compensation shall be awarded under Section 21 unless the
      plaintiff has claimed such compensation in his plaint. It is submitted that
      in the present case the plaintiff himself by an alternate prayer prayed
G     that if the specific performance cannot be performed by any reason, in
      that event, decree for refund of Rs. 31,50,000/- along with interest @
      24% per annum may be passed.
            It is submitted that at the most in view of the judgment and decree
      passed by the courts below, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover the
      amount of Rs. 31,50,000/- along with interest only. It is submitted that
H
            SUKHBIR v. AJIT SINGH [M. R. SHAH, J.]                             175


pursuant to the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the plaintiff     A
shall be entitled to receive Rs. 80 lakhs (approximately), which is lying
with the concerned acquiring body of the State of Haryana. It is submitted
that therefore the High Court has fallen in error in holding and directing
that the plaintiff shall be entitled to the entire amount of compensation
awarded under the Land Acquisition Act along with solatium and interest.
                                                                               B
       6. While opposing the present appeal, Shri Rakesh Talukdar,
learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has heavily relied
upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Jagdish Singh (supra)
and Urmila Devi v. Deity, Mandir Shree Chamunda Devi, (2018) 2
SCC 284. It is submitted that in both the cases this Court had an occasion
to consider the very submission made on Section 21 of the Specific             C
Relief Act and it is held by this Court that the original plaintiff shall be
entitled to the amount of compensation awarded under the Land
Acquisition Act less the amount of expenses incurred by the defendant
– original land owner for receiving the compensation. It is submitted that
in the present case, as such, there is nothing on record that any amount       D
was incurred by the defendant for receiving the amount of compensation
under the Land Acquisition Act.
       6.1 It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf
of the plaintiff that as held by this Court in the case of Jagdish Singh
(supra), which has been subsequently considered by this Court in the           E
case of Urmila Devi (supra), having regard to Section 21 of the Specific
Relief Act when the contract becomes impossible with no fault of the
plaintiff, Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act enables the Court to award
compensation in lieu and substitution of the specific performance.
      6.2 It is submitted that so far as the findings on execution of the      F
agreement to sell; the payment of the sale consideration of Rs. 31,50,000-
and readiness and willingness to pay the balance amount of sale
consideration, there are concurrent findings recorded by all the three
courts below which are on appreciation of evidence on record.
      6.3 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the            G
present appeal.
       7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
     At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such there are
concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the courts below on the            H
176             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                               [2021] 4 S.C.R.


A     execution of the agreement to sell by the defendant in favour of the
      plaintiff; payment of Rs. 31,50,000/- towards part sale consideration by
      the plaintiff to the defendant (out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 32
      lakhs) and the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to pay the balance
      sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, as such, the plaintiff shall
      be entitled to the decree for specific performance. However, in view of
B
      the fact that before the final decree could be passed by the learned trial
      court, the land in question came to be acquired under the provisions of
      the Land Acquisition Act and therefore the question arose before the
      High Court what relief the plaintiff shall be entitled to in the event the
      decree of specific performance is required to be modified by an alternative
C     decree.
             7.1 Relying upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Jagdish
      Singh (supra) and Urmila Devi (supra) and considering Section 21 of
      the Specific Relief Act, the High Court, by the impugned judgment and
      order has modified the judgment and decree for specific performance
D     and held that the plaintiff shall be entitled to the amount of compensation
      as there was no fault on the part of the plaintiff. It is held that the plaintiff
      shall be entitled to the amount of compensation as awarded under the
      Land Acquisition Act together with interest and solatium by way of
      compensation. Therefore, the short question which is posed for the
      consideration of this Court is, whether in the facts and circumstances of
E     the case, the High Court is justified in modifying the judgment and decree
      passed by the learned trial court for specific performance?
             8. An identical question came to be considered by this Court in
      the case of Jagdish Singh (supra). In the case before this Court, the
      learned trial court as well as the first appellate court dismissed the suit
F     for specific performance. However, the High Court in second appeal
      reversed the findings of the courts below and held that the plaintiff was
      ready and willing to perform the contract and was entitled for decree.
      However, during the pendency of the second appeal before the High
      Court, proceedings for compulsory acquisition of the land were initiated
G     and the land was acquired. Therefore, the question arose as to whether
      the plaintiff was entitled for the amount of compensation received in the
      land acquisition proceedings or was entitled only to the refund of the
      earnest money. The High Court modified the decree of the specific
      performance of the contract with decree for a realisation of compensation
      payable in lieu of acquisition. The matter was carried before this Court.
H
              SUKHBIR v. AJIT SINGH [M. R. SHAH, J.]                          177


After referring to Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, this Court has      A
held that where the contract for no fault of the plaintiff becomes
impossible, Section 21 enables award of compensation in lieu and
substitution of the specific performance. So far as the determination of
the amount of compensation, this Court observed and held that the
compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act may safely be
                                                                              B
taken to be the measure of damages subject, of course, to the deduction
therefrom of money value of the services, time and energy expended by
the original land owner in pursuing the claims of compensation and the
expenditure incurred by him in the litigation culminating in the award. In
paras 24, 29 and 30, it is observed and held as under:
      “24. When the plaintiff by his option has made specific                 C
      performance impossible, Section 21 does not entitle him to seek
      damages. That position is common to both Section 2 of Lord Cairn’s
      Act, 1858 and Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. But in
      Indian law where the contract, for no fault of the plaintiff, becomes
      impossible of performance Section 21 enables award of                   D
      compensation in lieu and substitution of specific performance.
        xxx                       xxx                       xxx
      29. In the present case there is no difficulty in assessing the
      quantum of the compensation. That is ascertainable with reference
      to the determination of the market value in the land acquisition        E
      proceedings. The compensation awarded may safely be taken to
      be the measure of damages subject, of course, to the deduction
      therefrom of money value of the services, time and energy
      expended by the appellant in pursuing the claims of compensation
      and the expenditure incurred by him in the litigation culminating in    F
      the award.
      30. We accordingly confirm the finding of the High Court that
      respondent was willing and ready to perform the contract and
      that it was the appellant who was in breach. However, in
      substitution of the decree for specific performance, we make a          G
      decree for compensation, equivalent to the amount of the land
      acquisition compensation awarded for the suit lands together with
      solatium and accrued interest, less a sum of Rs 1,50,000 (one lakh
      fifty thousand only) which, by a rough and ready estimate, we
      quantify as the amount to be paid to the appellant in respect of his
                                                                              H
178             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 4 S.C.R.


A           services, time and money expended in pursuing the legal claims
            for compensation.”
           The aforesaid view has been followed by this Court in the case of
      Urmila Devi (supra).
             9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two
B     decisions to the facts of the case in hand, it cannot be said that the High
      Court has committed any error in modifying the decree for specific
      performance. As rightly held by the High Court, as such, the plaintiff will
      be deemed to be in the shoes of the defendant and therefore shall be
      entitled to the amount of compensation, determined and awarded under
C     the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
              10. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that
      as compensation has not been specifically prayed by the plaintiff in the
      suit, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any amount of compensation
      even considering Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act. The aforesaid
D     has no substance. The decree for compensation is passed as an alternate
      decree and in lieu of the decree for specific performance.
             11. Now so far as the amount of compensation is concerned, as
      observed by this Court in the case of Jagdish Singh (supra), the
      compensation determined and awarded under the Land Acquisition Act
E     may safely be taken into consideration. Therefore, the High Court has
      rightly observed and held that the plaintiff shall be entitled to the entire
      amount of compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act
      together with interest and solatium. However, at the same time, the
      defendant – original land owner shall also be entitled to the deduction
      therefrom of money value of the services, time and energy expended in
F     pursuing the claims of compensation and the expenditure incurred by
      him in the litigation culminating in the award. As such, nothing is on
      record to suggest that any expenses have been incurred by the appellant.
      However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering
      the decisions of this Court in the cases of Jagdish Singh (supra) and
G     Urmila Devi (supra), ends of justice will be served if the plaintiff is
      awarded the entire amount of compensation determined under the Land
      Acquisition Act together with interest and solatium less Rs. 2,50,000/- +
      Rs.50,000/- (towards the balance sale consideration).
            12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      present appeal is disposed of by modifying the impugned judgment and
H
                SUKHBIR v. AJIT SINGH [M. R. SHAH, J.]                           179


order passed by the High Court to the extent directing and holding that          A
the plaintiff – respondent herein shall be entitled to recover the entire
amount of compensation along with solatium and interest awarded under
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, which is reported to be lying/
deposited with the acquiring body with respect to the land in question
minus Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. 2,50,000/- towards the expenses which might
                                                                                 B
have been incurred in pursuing the claims of compensation and the
expenditure incurred by him in the litigation culminating in the award +
Rs. 50,000/- towards balance sale consideration). Therefore, the appellant
– defendant shall be entitled to Rs. 3,00,000/- from the amount of
compensation deposited with the acquiring body and the balance amount
of compensation together with interest and solatium to be paid to the            C
original plaintiff.
        13. The appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent only. Rest
of the judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby confirmed.
No costs.
                                                                                 D
Devika Gujral                                           Appeal partly allowed.




                                                                                 E




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H