Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Madras High Court (‘High Court’), the three-judges bench of Mehr Chand Mahajan, Chandrasekhara Aiyar* and N.H. Bhagwati, JJ., opined that whatever might be the real truth about the title of the property, it was not to be decided in the present case as the respondent’s father was not made party in the suit and also, the respondent could not be allowed to urge his own defective title as an answer to a suit for specific performance by the purchaser. The Supreme Court opined that the respondent was bound by law to execute a conveyance as per the agreement, and his right, title or interest, whatever it might be, would pass under the same.
Background
On 23-8-1941, an agreement was entered between Somasundaram Chettiar and the respondent for the sale of certain lands that belonged to the defendant at a price of Rs. 1000 per acre. As per the agreement, payment of Rs. 500 was to be paid in advance and the remaining balance was to be paid in fifteen days. Subsequently, the sale deed was executed and registered. The agreement also contained a further clause, wherein it was stated that, as the properties were in the name of the respondent’s father, he should get his signature as a witness in the sale deed.
Thereafter the suit was filed by Somasundaram Chettiar for the specific performance of the agreement and prayer was made for execution of a deed of conveyance for possession of the properties covered by the agreement and for the profit for the year 1951 and subsequent profits at the same rate till delivery of possession.
The respondent stated that his father’s consent was a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under the agreement and as the father had not given his consent, Somasundaram Chettiar was not entitled to enforce the agreement.
The Subordinate Judge of Madura concluded that there was a concluded agreement for sale and the father’s consent was not a condition precedent. Thus, a decree was passed for specific performance of the agreement and two months possession time was granted for the execution of the sale deed. Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal and the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Madura was reversed by the High Court.
Thus, the present appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Supreme Court observed that the final agreement was preceded by the draft agreement and in that draft, there was originally a clause that if it was necessary, the defendant’s father should also jointly execute the sale deed. However, this clause was removed from the final agreement because it was admitted that the respondent himself told to remove that clause because his father had no interest in the lands. Thereafter, Somasundaram Chettiar’s pleader suggested that the respondent’s father should attest the sale deed which was accepted by the respondent. The Supreme Court opined that the respondent had tried to get out of the difficulty by stating that he did not read the document and he did not know the Tamil manuscript, but the respondent had admitted in his evidence that the document was read over to him.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court observed that in the letter dated 30-08-1941, which was addressed to the son of Somasundaram Chettiar, the respondent had expressed his inability to convey the land or effect the sale as his father had refuse to give consent, but he did not state that such condition was a condition precedent to the agreement being enforced.
The Supreme Court opined that the respondent’s father was not the party to the suit and was dead. If he died before the respondent, any title of the respondent acquired from his father would be bound by the decree and if he died after the defendant, principle of estoppel under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 might arise.
The Supreme Court opined that if the title of the property was with the father, it was likely that there was condition precedent, but if it was not with the father, it might be that the parties thought that the father’s consent was more or less a formality and would be forthcoming. However, after considering all the evidence brought forth by the petitioner and respondent, the Supreme Court opined that whatever might be the real truth about the title of the property, it was not to be decided in the present case as the father of the respondent was not made a party and also, the respondent could not be allowed to urge his own defective title as an answer to a suit for specific performance by the purchaser. The Supreme Court opined that the respondent was bound by law to execute a conveyance as per the agreement, and his right, title or interest, whatever it might be, would pass under the same.
Thus, the Supreme Court opined that it was unable to affirm the finding of the High Court that there was a condition precedent which was not fulfilled and accordingly, allowed the present appeal. The Supreme Court further stated that the appellant would have two months from 10-12-1952 to deposit Rs 22,790 into the Trial Court and within two months, the respondents would execute a deed of conveyance of the properties which are specified in the appellant’s favour.
[Kannappa Chettiar v. Abbas Ali, (1952) 2 SCC 124, decided on 10-12-1952]
*Judgment by- Justice Chandrasekhara Aiyar
Note: Specific performance in cases of imperfect title under Specific Relief Act, 1963
Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides the right of purchasers against person with no title or imperfect title. As per the provision, where subsequent to the contract, if the vendor has acquired any interest in the property, the purchaser may compel to sell or let on hire such interest. Further, where the concurrence of other persons is necessary for validating the title, then the purchaser may compel the vendor to procure such concurrence. Section 13(1)(d) specifies that where the vendor filed a suit for the specific performance of contract and the suit is dismissed on the ground of his imperfect title, the defendant has right to return a deposit with interest to his cost of the suit.
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: M.C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate (G.R. Jagadisa Iyer, Advocate, with him);
For the Respondent: V.T. Rangaswamy Iyengar, Senior Advocate (R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocate, with him)
