- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani Others v. H.P.A. International Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The defendant-appellants, as subsequent purchasers, appealed against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 24th January 1994, which affirmed the trial Court's decree for specific performance of an agreement. On 26th June 1977, respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement with the first respondent for transfer of his life interest in the disputed property. Subsequently, on 29th December 1979, respondent No. 2 transferred rights to the defendant-appellants for Rs. 4.40 lakhs. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the nearly five-year delay in delivery of the High Court's judgment after the conclusion of the hearing justifies setting aside that judgment.
- Whether the appeal should be decided afresh on merits given the delay in judgment delivery.
- The protection of possession and rights of parties during the pendency of the appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The Attorney General for the appellants contended that the delay of nearly five years in delivering the High Court judgment after the hearing concluded on 22nd March 1989 is sufficient ground to set aside the judgment.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Kunwar Singh and others v. Sri Thakurji Maharaj (1995 Supp.(4) SCC 125) to support the contention regarding the impact of delay in judgment delivery.
- The appellants sought protection of their interests if respondent No. 1 continued in possession of the property.
Respondents' Arguments
- The learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1 accepted that the delay in judgment delivery could cause apprehension that arguments were not properly appreciated.
- An agreed statement was made that during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, respondent No. 1 would not create any third party rights and would deposit rent/income from the property in the High Court subject to maintenance and tax deductions.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Kunwar Singh and others v. Sri Thakurji Maharaj, 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 125 | Impact of long delay in delivery of judgment on the validity of the judgment | The Court acknowledged the principle but declined to decide the broad question on merits, using the delay as a ground to set aside the High Court judgment and remit the case for fresh hearing. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court recognized that the High Court hearing concluded on 22nd March 1989 but judgment was delivered nearly five years later, on 24th January 1994. Such delay can cause unnecessary speculation and apprehension that the arguments were not properly considered. Although the Court did not decide on the substantive merits of the case or the broad legal question raised by the Attorney General, it found the delay sufficient to set aside the judgment under appeal. The Court remitted the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits, urging expeditious disposal within six months due to the prolonged pendency. Regarding possession, the Court noted that respondent No. 1, as lawful owner in possession, is entitled to continue possession while the decree remains intact. To protect appellants' interests, the parties agreed that respondent No. 1 would not create third party rights during the appeal and would deposit rent/income from the property in the High Court, after deductions, subject to the appeal's outcome. The Court ordered accordingly.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is allowed on the limited ground of undue delay in judgment delivery by the High Court.
The High Court judgment dated 24th January 1994 is set aside without expressing any opinion on the merits, and the case is remitted for fresh hearing and decision on merits within six months. The respondent No. 1 is entitled to continue possession of the property pending the appeal, but shall not create any third party rights and must deposit rent/income in the High Court subject to deductions and the appeal's final outcome. No order as to costs was made. No new precedent was established by this decision; its effect is confined to the parties and the procedural posture of the case.
1. The defendant-appellants, who are the subsequent purchasers, are in appeal. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Madras High Court dated 24th January, 1994 whereby the decree for specific performance of the agreement passed by the trial Court was affirmed.
2. On 26th June, 1977, respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement with first respondent herein, for transfer of his life interest in the property in dispute. On 29.12.79, respondent No. 2 transferred the rights in favour of the defendant-appellants who are the subsequent purchasers for consideration of Rs. 4.40 lakhs. Under such circumstances, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 brought a suit for specific performance, which was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal preferred to the High Court was dismissed. It is in this way, the defendant-appellants are before us.
3. Learned Attorney General appearing for the appellants urged that, before the High Court, the hearing of the appeal was concluded on 22nd March, 1989 but the judgment was delivered on 24th January, 1994 - nearly five years after the hearing was concluded, and this long delay in delivery of judgment by itself is sufficient to set aside the judgment under appeal. Learned Attorney General has also relied upon decision of this Court in the case of Kunwar Singh and others v. Sri Thakurji Maharaj - 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 125. At present, we are not disposed to go into this broad question as urged by the learned Attorney General. However, it is correct to this extent that long delay in delivery of judgment gives raise to unnecessary speculations in the mind of parties to a case. Moreover, the appellants whose appeals have been dismissed by the High Court may have the apprehension that the arguments raised at the bar have not been reflected or appreciated while dictating the judgment—nearly after five y ears. This is fairly not disputed by learned Senior Counsel, Shri. K. Parasaran, appearing for respondent No. 1. We, therefore, on this short question, set aside the judgment under appeal without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and remit the case to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh, on merits. In view of the fact, that the matter has been pending for a considerable period of time, we request the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously, if possible, within six months.
4. Before we part with the case, we would like to observe that when this appeal was filed in this Court, the interim “relief prayed for by the appellants was refused. As a consequence, respondent No. 2 executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No. 1, and respondent No. 1 came in possession of the property and since then, he continues to be in possession. Under such circumstances, respondent No. 1 being the lawful owner, so long the decree remains in tact, is entitled to continue in possession over the property in dispute. Learned Attorney General urged that, in case respondent No. 1 is to continue in possession over the property, the interest of the appellants may also to be protected. It is then, learned Counsel for the parties made an agreed statement that during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, respondent No. 1 shall not create any third party right in respect of the property in dispute and further shall deposit the rent/income received from that property in the High Court after deducting the maintenance charges and tax liabilities which shall be subject to the decision of the appeal in the High Court. We order accordingly.
5. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. All the I.As are disposed of accordingly.
Alert