SUKHBIR VS AJIT SINGH

CITATION	Civil appeal no.1653 of 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT	30th April,2021
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Sukhbir
RESPONDENT	Ajit Singh
BENCH	Hon’ble Dr.Chandrachud,M.R.Shah

INTRODUCTION

The case of Sukhbir Vs Ajit Singh revolves around the principle of compensation in instances where contractual obligations are unfulfilled due to circumstances beyond the control of the defendant.Specifically ,it addresses the scenario where the performance of a contract    becomes impossible due to the acquisition of land ,thereby rendering the terms of the agreement unenforceable . In such a situation ,the plaintiff, who has already paid a portion of the consideration and demonstrated readiness to fulfil the remaining financial obligations, seeks redress for the losses incurred.The entitlement to compensation, interest ,and solatium hinges on the plaintiff’s demonstrated intent and actions as a prospective rightful owner under normal circumstances .By having paid portion of the consideration and showing willingness to complete the transaction ,the plaintiff establishes a legitimate claim to be treated as if the contract could have been fulfilled under different circumstances .The rationale ensures that the plaintiff is not unfairly disadvantages by the unforeseen events leading to the contract’s impossibility .Compensation ,in this context, serves to mitigate the financial impact on the plaintiff ,reflecting the principle of fairness and equity in contractual relations .It aims to restore the plaintiff to a position that closely resembles the benefits they would have received as originally intended.Interest and solatium further acknowledge the inconvenience and loss suffered due to the inability to consummate the transaction ,providing additional relief beyond mere financial compensation.

 FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The litigants entered into an agreement to sell a piece of landform total sale consideration of Rs 32 lakhs.out of this sum, the plaintiff paid Rs.31,50,000 to the defendant as advance.

2. As per the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed on 08.07.2010.The defendent failed to execute the deed on the said date .Pursuant to thistle plaintiff served a legal notice to the defendant to be present at the office of the sub registrar on  06.08.2010 to execute the sale deed.The defendant explicitly refused to be present at the office at the sub registrar two days prior itself I.e on 04.08.2010.

3. Thereafter ,a civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the civil court at Jhajjar for specific performance of the agreement.Suffice to know that the hon’ble court directed the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

4. The learned first appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court.Hitherto,it had not been brought to the notice of the hobble court that the land in question had been acquired by the Haryana government

5. In the second hand appeal filed before the high court by the original owner of land ,it was contended that since the land was acquired by the government ,the original defendant (owner of the land)had no saleable right and original sale deed could not be executed.Furthermore it was posited, that the plaintiff was entitled merely to a refund of the amount of sale consideration with interest and not any additional compensation as the high court had awarded, since the same had not been prayed for by the plaintiff.It was argued that the high court had vitiated section 21(5) of the Relief Act by granting addiional compensation.

6. Contrarily ,the other side placed on Jagdish Sigh vs Natty Singh where the facts of the case were similar.The Supreme Court had similar.The Supreme Court had held that in the contingency that the performance of a deed was rendered impossible by no fault of the plaintiff, he was to be entitled to the entire amount of compensation and solatium with interest ,etc.

7. In the instant case ,on whether the lower courts were justified in modifying the judgement and decree in lieu and substitution of specific performance of a sale deed, the Supreme Court held such modification to be legally tenable.The view adopted by the High Court of the plaintiff being in the shoes of the defendant and thus being entitled to the amount of compensation paid by the government for land acquisition had a clear jurisprudential precedence. The judgement of the High court was in pursuance Jagdish Singh Vs Natty Singh and subsequently,Urmila Devi Vs The Deity Mandir Shree Chamunda.

8. Furthermore ,the court held that the argument of the plaintiff not having prayed for compensation and consequently not being entitled to any compensation had “no substance” since the decree for compensation was passed as an alternate decree.On question of the amount of compensation ,the Supreme Court was in consonance with the High Court and held that the amount paid under the Land Acquisition Act be taken into consideration.However, the Supreme Court awarded the original holder of land Rs 3 lakhs as compensation for the expenses incurred during the award of compensation by the government and the payment of arrears according to the terms of the original sale deed.

ISSUES RAISED

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 23.09.2016 of the high Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A.No.4848/2016.
2. The High Court disposed of the second appeal by modifying the judgement and decree for specific performance related to an agreement to sell.
3. The modification held that the respondent(original plaintiff)shall be deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the vendor.
4. The respondent(original plaintiff)was granted entitlement to the entire amount of compensation ,solatium ,interest ,etc.,due to the acquisition of the land.
5. The original defendant has filed the present appeal challenging this decision.

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

1. The defendant filed a second appeal (R.S.A.no.4848/2016)before the High Court against the judgement and decree passed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court.
2. It was argued that since the land in question had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act the defendant had no saleable right or interest in the property ,rendering the agreement to sell unenforceable.
3. Submissions were made challenging the findings of the trial court regarding the execution of the agreement to sell,receipt of rs.31,50,000 as part of the sale consideration ,and the plaintiff’s readiness to pay the remaining Rs.50,000.
4. The High court modified the lower courts’decree and ruled that instead of specific performance ,the plaintiff should receive the entire compensation amount, including solatium and interest ,due to the land acquisition.
5. Referring to Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act and Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act ,it was argued that the plaintiff could at most claim a refund of the sale consideration with interest.
6. It was pointed out under Section 21 (1)of the Specific Relief ,compensation can be granted if the contract is breached by the defenant ,but under Section 21(5),no compensation can be awarded unless specifically claimed in the plaint.
7. The plaintiff did not claim compensation but instead sought a decree for refund of Rs.31,50,000 with 24% interest per annum in case specific performance was not feasible .

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

1. The original defendant is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order issued by the High Court ,prompting them to file an appeal.
2. The appeal challenges to specific aspects of the High Court’s decision that are deemed unjust or erroneous by the defendant .
3. Grounds of dissatisfaction include perceived legal errors,misinterpretation of factor procedural irregularities during the trial.
4. The defendant asserts that the High Court’s ruling did not adequately consider key evidence or legal precedents essential to their case.
5. There is a belief that the judgement adversely affects the defendant’s rights interests ,or legal position.
6. The appeal aims to seek redressal and correction of the alleged injustices or inaccuracies identified in the High Court’s decision.
7. The defendant contends that a different interpretation of the law or facts could lead to a more favourable outcome.
8. Legal counsel for the defendant has meticulously outlined grounds for appeal based on substantive and procedural deficiencies observed during the trial.
9. The appellate court is expected to review the case with a fresh perspective ,considering all relevant arguments and evidence presented by both parties.
10. Overall, the defendant remains optimistic that the appellate process will rectify the perceived shortcomings of the earlier judgement and ensure a fair resolution of the dispute.

 JUDGEMENT 

In its dismissal of the appeal under the Specific Relief Act ,the Supreme Court referenced precedents such as Jagdish Singh and Urmila Devi .The court ruled that the plaintiff (respondent)is eligible to seek full compensation ,including interest and solatium ,minus any amounts received by the defendant .Additionally ,the defendant can claim expenses related to pursuing claims and litigation costs ,tootling Rupees 300,000/-The Courts decision underscores the plaintiff’s right to compensation under the specific relief Act ,aligning with principles laid out in previous judgements .By excluding the defendant’s receipts from the compensation calculation ,the court ensures the plaintiff receives rightful restitution for damages suffered .Moreover,allowing the defendant to claim specified expenses acknowledges their legitimate costs incurred during legal proceedings.

This ruling reflects a balanced approach to resolving disputes under the Specific Relief Act ,aiming to provide equitable relief to parties involved while upholding legal standards established in prior cases.It emphasises the court’s role in interpreting and applying statutory provisions to achieve fair and just outcomes in matters concerning relief and compensation .

CONCLUSION

In a landmark decision ,the Hobble Supreme Court Adjudicated on the dispute between the appellant and respondent concerning compensation from land acquisition .The Court decisively rejected the appellant’s arguments and affirmed the respondent’s right to receive the entirety of the compensation ,inclusive of interest and solatium initially received by the appellant.This ruling underscores the Court’s commitment to equitable distribution of benefits arising from land acquisition processes.

Furthermore ,in a significant extension of justice ,the Supreme Court acknowledged the defendant’s entitlement to claim compensation for litigation costs and other expenses incurred during the pursuit of the suit .This allowance reflects the Court’s recognition of the financial implications and burdens borne by the parties involved in legal proceedings ,thereby promoting fairness and balance in judicial outcomes.By upholding the respondent’s rights to compensation and granting the defendant compensation for litigation expenses ,the Supreme Court’s decision not only settles the immediate dispute but also sets a precedent for future cases involving land acquisition and compensation distribution .This landmark ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fairness and equity in matters of property rights and legal remedies ,ensuring justice for all parties involved .

REFERENCES

1.https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/

2.https://indiankanoon.org/

3.https://www.the-laws.com/

This Article is written by Zil Sachela student of Kes JP Law college ,Mumbai; Intern at Legal Vidhiya. 

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.