B. Santoshamma & Anr. vs. D. Sarala & Anr.
(1999) 6 SCC 40 [42]; (2004) 7 SCC 650
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Uday Umesh Lalit & Hon’ble Justice Indira Banerjee
Forum: Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
Case No.: Civil Appeal No.3574 of 2009 with Civil Appeal Nos. 3575-3577 of 2009
Date of Decision: September 18, 2020

Facts:

  • B. Santoshamma (Vendor) purchased 300 sq. yards in Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, in 1982 and orally agreed to sell 100 sq. yards to Pratap Reddy for Rs. 3,000, with Rs. 2,500 paid upfront.
  • On 20 January 1984, the oral agreement was reduced to writing, with the balance of Rs. 500 paid and a sale deed to be executed later.
  • On 21st March 1984, the Vendor agreed with D. Sarala (Vendee) to sell 300 sq. yards for Rs. 75,000, with Rs. 40,000 paid upfront. The vendor disclosed the prior agreement with Pratap Reddy for 100 sq. yards.
  • The Vendee assured the Vendor that her husband would arrange to cancel the agreement with Pratap Reddy without requiring his clearance.
  • Despite the Vendee’s assurances, the Vendor executed a deed of conveyance for 100 sq. yards to Pratap Reddy on 25th May 1984, leading to a dispute.
  • The Vendee filed a suit (O.S. No. 222 of 1984) for specific performance of 300 sq. yards, while Pratap Reddy filed a suit (O.S. No. 190 of 1985) for an injunction to protect his possession.
  • On March 30, 1994, the Trial Court granted the Vendee specific performance for 200 sq. yards and ordered her to pay the remaining Rs. 5,000. However, it denied the Vendee’s claim for the 100 sq. yards, which was dismissed due to the registered sale deed in favour of Pratap Reddy.
  • Appeals were filed by the Vendor (A.S. No. 1785 of 1994) and the Vendee (A.S. Nos. 892, 893, and 894 of 1994) before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
  • On 7th September 2006, the High Court dismissed all appeals and upheld the Trial Court’s judgment, confirming the Vendee’s entitlement to 200 sq. yards only.
  • Hence, the Vendor and the Vendee appealed to the Supreme Court, contesting the High Court’s judgment. The Vendor sought to overturn the specific performance ruling for 200 square yards, while the Vendee contested the denial of her claims over 100 square yards and dismissed her declaration suit.

Main Issue:

  • Whether the High Court erred in affirming the Trial Court's judgment, which allowed specific performance for 200 sq. yards at Rs. 50,000, excluding 100 sq. yards sold to Pratap Reddy? (Paragraph 65)