Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from two appeals against a common decree dated 14.1.2010 passed by the Bombay High Court in Suit No.1642 of 1984. The original plaintiff, Kanchan Rohira, filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 9.1.1977 executed with Defendant No.1, Nirmal Constructions Pvt. Ltd., for a flat. During the pendency of the suit, Defendant No.1 informed the plaintiff that the flat had been sold to Defendant No.3, M/s. Ravi Overseas Corporation, by an agreement for sale dated 18.11.1981. Defendant No.2, Girish Jalani, was an employee of Defendant No.3 and occupied the flat in that capacity. Subsequently, Defendant No.3 sold the flat to Defendant No.4, Suresh Dhoot, vide agreement for sale dated 12.5.1986. The trial court partly decreed the suit, dismissing the prayer for specific performance but granting alternative relief in terms of prayer clauses (d) and (e), which sought damages of Rs.1,52,250/- in lieu of specific performance. The plaintiff appealed (Appeal No.171/2010) against the refusal of specific performance, while Defendant No.4 appealed (Appeal No.490/2010) against the decree for damages. The court considered the issues of specific performance, alternative relief, and the bona fide purchaser status of Defendant No.4. The court held that the trial court's finding that Defendant No.4 was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice was not challenged by the plaintiff in the appeal, and therefore specific performance against subsequent purchasers was rightly refused. The court also upheld the alternative decree for damages, finding no reason to interfere with the quantum or the rate of interest. Both appeals were dismissed, and the interim application was disposed of.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Alternative Relief - Damages in Lieu - Section 21 Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Plaintiff sought specific performance of agreement dated 9.1.1977 for sale of flat; trial court dismissed specific performance but granted alternative decree for damages of Rs.1,52,250/- with interest - Held that alternative relief of damages can be granted even if specific performance is refused, provided the plaintiff is entitled to it on facts (Paras 1-3). B) Bona Fide Purchaser - Subsequent Sale - Protection - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 41 - Flat sold by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3 in 1981 and then to Defendant No.4 in 1986; Defendant No.4 claimed to be bona fide purchaser for value without notice - Held that the trial court's finding that Defendant No.4 was a bona fide purchaser was not challenged by plaintiff in appeal, thus specific performance against subsequent purchasers was rightly refused (Paras 2, 4). C) Damages - Quantification - Interest - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 21 - Trial court awarded Rs.1,52,250/- as damages with interest at 6% per annum from date of suit till realization - Held that the quantum of damages was based on evidence and not interfered with in appeal (Paras 3, 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of an agreement for sale of a flat, and if not, whether the alternative claim for damages is maintainable and properly quantified.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 14.1.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit No.1642 of 1984 is confirmed. Interim Application (Lodging) No.8008 of 2026 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- alternative relief
- damages in lieu of specific performance
- bona fide purchaser for value without notice
- limitation for specific performance
- readiness and willingness
