When appeal was dismissed on merits and technical point – while confirming lower appellate court dismissal order , it not necessary to decided the technical point =The suit was filed in the year 1982. The Trial Court has noted that the property was given on rent by defendant to other person with regard to which there was another agreement. The possession was not with the appellant or defendant and was with the third person. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence available on record, has categorically held that plaintiff had failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, as required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. We are of the view that in the present case it is not necessary for us to consider the issues pertaining to abatement of appeal on the ground that appellant did not bring on the record all the legal heirs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4132 OF 2008

MOHAN LAL APPELLANT(S)

                            VERSUS

RAM KANWAR (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of

the High Court dated 11.09.2007 in Civil Revision No.1903

of 1994 by which judgment Civil Revision filed by the

appellant has been dismissed. The appellant had filed a

suit No.338/1982 for specific performance of contract

dated 29.09.1982.

The appellant’s case was that he entered into an

agreement of sale with Raghubir Prasad, the defendant,

for a consideration of Rs.6000/-. An amount of Rs.200/-

was paid, as advance, at the time of agreement. Sale deed

was to be executed within 20 days and when sale deed was

not executed, suit has been filed. In the Trial Court

defendant appeared and filed a written statement. The

Trial Court framed six issues and while considering the

relief returned a finding that plaintiff failed to prove

that he was ready and willing to perform his part of

contract. The suit for relief of specific performance was

1

denied and the suit was dismissed. The Trial Court in

paragraph 18 of the judgment has considered in detail the

evidence and came to a finding that plaintiff was not

ready and willing to perform his part of contract. An

appeal was filed against the said judgment by the

appellant in which appeal the appellant did not bring on

record all the heirs of deceased except two sons who

themselves came forward and got impleaded.

The learned District Judge held the appeal to be

abated. The District Judge while abating the appeal has

noticed that even in the application filed by two sons of

deceased the details of all the heirs were mentioned,

still the appellant did not take steps for bringing legal

heirs on record. Against the judgment of District Judge,

abating the appeal, civil revision was filed which was

also dismissed by the High Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that High

Court as well as the District Judge committed error in

dismissing the revision and abating the appeal and matter

ought to have been heard on merits. Learned counsel for

the appellant further submitted that the Trial Court

committed error in dismissing the suit and appellant was

entitled to address the Appellate Court on the merits and

satisfy the Court that he was ready and willing to

perform his part of contract.

We have considered the submissions of learned

counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

2

The suit was filed in the year 1982. The Trial Court

has noted that the property was given on rent by

defendant to other person with regard to which there was

another agreement. The possession was not with the

appellant or defendant and was with the third person. The

Trial Court, after considering the evidence available on

record, has categorically held that plaintiff had failed

to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his

part of contract, as required by Section 16(c) of the

Specific Relief Act. We are of the view that in the

present case it is not necessary for us to consider the

issues pertaining to abatement of appeal on the ground

that appellant did not bring on the record all the legal

heirs. The findings of Trial Court were well considered

and need no interference.

There is no merit in the appeal, which is

accordingly dismissed.

……………….J.

(ASHOK BHUSHAN)

……………….J.

(NAVIN SINHA)

New Delhi

July 11, 2019

3

ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV

           S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                   RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s).4132/2008

MOHAN LAL Appellant(s)

                            VERSUS

RAM KANWAR (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. Respondent(s)

(WITH IA NO. 55745/2008 (registered as I.A. No.3/2008 in CIS)

[APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION /CLARIFICATION OF THE ORDER DATED

14.5.2008]

Date : 11-07-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

For Appellant(s)

Mr. R.K. Kapoor, ADv.

Ms. Shweta Kapoor, Adv.

Mr. Rajat Kapoor, Adv.

Ms. Priya Pandey, Adv.

                Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan, AOR

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Siddharth Mittal, AOR

Mr. Parbhat Kumar, Adv.

      UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

                         O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(ARJUN BISHT) (RENU KAPOOR)

COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER

(signed order is placed on the file)

4