Ameer Minhaj vs Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar

2. The appellant filed a suit in the Court of District Judge of the   Nilgiris   at   Udhagamandalam,   being   O.S.   No.23   of   2010, against   Mr.   Charles   Thomas   Orme   Alford   Wright   who   died during the pendency of the suit whereafter respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein (defendant Nos.3 & 4) were brought on record as his heirs and legal representatives. It was asserted in the suit that   the   original   defendant   No.1   was   the   absolute   owner   of 4.80   acres   of   land   in   Survey   No.H­48A   in   R.S.   No.332/1   of Coonoor  Rural Village. He had entered into an agreement of sale with respondent No.3 (defendant No.2) on 12 th November, 1995   agreeing   to   sell  the  said  property   either  to  the  second defendant   or   its   nominees.   It   is   further   asserted   by   the appellant (plaintiff) that in furtherance of the said agreement to   sell   the   second   defendant   was   put   in   possession   of   the property   agreed   to   be   sold,   in   part   performance   of   the agreement   of   sale   and   that   fact   has   been   recited   in   the agreement   of   sale   itself.   The   agreement   also   authorized   the 3 second defendant, at its discretion, to develop the property by constructing dwelling units thereon for which the predecessor in   title   of   respondent   Nos.1   &   2   (namely   the   original   1 st defendant) was to cooperate and give consent, whenever and wherever   necessary,    for the unhindered development of the property. It was then asserted by the appellant (plaintiff) that to effectuate the stated agreement to sell, a registered Power of Attorney   was   executed   in   favour   of   the   second   defendant (respondent No.3) by the owner (original first defendant). That Power of Attorney was registered on 2nd May, 1996 in the office of   Sub   Registrar,   Coonoor.   It   was   then   stated   that   since respondent No.3 (defendant No.2) was unable to develop the said property due to unavoidable situation, he requested the appellant (plaintiff) to execute the project of developing the suit property into building sites for dwelling units and to sell it to prospective purchasers. The appellant (plaintiff) accepted the said   offer   after   doing   due   diligence   and   resultantly,   an agreement of sale came to be executed on 9 th July, 2003 by the 1st  defendant ­ the original owner of the suit property namely 4 the predecessor in title of respondent Nos.1 & 2 ­ in favour of the appellant (plaintiff) through his Power of Attorney holder, namely, respondent No.3 (2nd defendant) for a consideration of Rs.1 crore. Earnest money of Rs.25 lakh was paid at the time of the execution of agreement of sale and the balance was to be   paid   within   a   period   of   12   months,   subject   to   certain stipulations. The appellant (plaintiff) was put in possession of the   suit   property   upon   execution   of   the   agreement   of   sale dated   9th  July,   2003.   The   1st  defendant   did   not   fulfill   his obligation within the stipulated period as a result of which a suit   for   specific   performance,   permanent   injunction   and alternative relief of refund of the advance amount came to be filed on 2nd  August, 2010.

The   defendants   filed   their   written   statement   to   counter   the claim set up in the plaint by the appellant. It is not necessary to dilate on the factual matrix as the issue to be answered in the present appeal/proceedings is very limited.

15. Accordingly,   this   appeal   ought   to   succeed   by   restoring the order of the Trial Court dated 1st June, 2016 in the above terms.  The Trial Court shall decide all other issues concerning the validity, genuineness, applicability and binding nature of the documents including whether it is hit by the provisions of the   1882   Act   or   the   1899   Act   on   its   own   merits   and 3  (2009) 2 SCC 532 17 uninfluenced  by the observations made by it or by the High Court.

16. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

17. As   the   suit   is   pending   since   2010,   we   direct   the   Trial Court   to   dispose   of   the   same   as   expeditiously   as   possible, preferably   within   a   period   of   six   months   from   the   date   of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

.………………………….CJI.

July  04, 2018.