New Delhi:
The law helps with vigilance, not those who sleep on their rights, the Supreme Court said on Friday and upheld the High Court’s decision on the dispute related to property in Bengaluru.
A bench of Justices JB Pardwala and R Mahadevan was listening to the issue when the first installment of the total sales idea of a property was seized by Rs 20 lakh.
The bench, which explains in detail on “Bayana Dhan” and “advance money” to be relevant to the case, said that the Karnataka High Court refused to give relief to the appellant from the return of advance funds as he did not offer alternative prayers to the suit in the suit.
The apex court stated that it was a systematic position of the law that the plaintiff could be amended at any stage of action to enable the complainant in search of alternative relief, including the return of earnest money, and the courts were linked with a comprehensive judicial discretion to allow such amendments.
It mentioned a provision of the Special Relief Act, 1963 and said that the courts could not give such relief to Suu Motu.
The provision of the Act, the bench said, the appellant was sufficiently wide and flexible to allow the appellant to amend the plaintiffs even in the appellate phase.
“However, no such application for the amendment of the plaintiff was transferred before the trial court or during the first appeal before the High Court. It is said that the appellant never prayed for a return of advance funds,” said this.
The apex court said, “Here, it will be meaningless to say that the law helps with vigilance, not those who sleep on their rights.” The apex court challenged the High Court’s August 2021 order and gave its verdict on an appeal.
The bench noted that the dispute arose from a claim for a specific performance of July 2007, which considers a total sale of Rs 55.50 lakh in relation to a property for total sale.
It was noted that Rs 20 lakh was paid for part payment and the agreement stated that the sales transaction would be completed within four months with the payment of the balance.
The appellant before the apex court first took a trial court to a trial court, seeking a direction to execute the sales deed to the original owner and distribute the possession of the suit property.
The trial court dismissed the trial, after which he moved to the High Court, which confirmed the trial court’s decision, seeking the appellant that failed to consider the remaining sale within four months.
In its judgment, the apex court said that the only question that fell for its consideration was whether the appellant was entitled to a return of Rs 20 lakh, which was paid as “advance money”.
The bench stated that there was a clear fierce section in the agreement, determining that the paid advance funds would be seized by the buyer in the default position to meet the terms of the contract.
The word “advance” means whole or partially, paid before considering an agreement, which was completely payable.
On the other hand, the bench explained that the word “Bayana” was the amount given aimed at forcing a contract, which when the contract is not closed and is not adjusted in the price, it is confiscated.
It said that the amount of Rs 20 lakh was compulsory “earnest money” and was in the nature of guarantee for proper performance of the contract.
“Consequently, when the appellaver-Khariddar failed to follow the contracted stipend to consider the remaining sale within a period of four months from the date of the agreement, the respondents were justified to seize 1-4 (vendors) to seize the advance funds,” it was held.
The appellant, the apex court said, neither sought any detail to do its share of the contract nor the time given by four respondents was made.
Instead of making one -sided and unconscious, tremendous clauses were fair and justified, as it applied liabilities on both the buyer and sellers, in which the seller was obliged to pay double the advance amount paid by the buyer in the case of his default.
Assuming that it was appropriate to seize advance funds, the bench found no “deformity or illegal” in the High Court’s decision.
(Except for the headline, the story has not been edited by NDTV employees and is published by a syndicated feed.)
