K. Kalpana Saraswathi versus P. S. S. Somasundram Chettiar

In 1967 the respondent agreed to sell his house to the. appellant for a sum : Rs. 4 lakhs which then was subject to an equitable mortgage in favour of a ank. Tue trial court decreed the suit for specific performance directing the aintiff to deposit the mort!l"ge amount within a specified time with interest at 11 per cent till the date of payment and that failure to pay the amount would result in the suit being dismissed. At the time of the agreement the plaintiff paid the whole consideration except the mortgage amount and obtained possession of the house. The plaintiff did not deposit the mortgage amount within the prescribed time. She paid the mortgage money to tho bank some months afterwards and took an assignment of its rights. In the suit filed by the bank against the defendant she got herself impleaded as second plaintiff. Eventually the mortgage suit resulted in a decree in favour of the appellant. By this time the amount had swollen to Rs. 11 lakhs.

¶10

c

¶11

D

¶12

On appeal a division bench of the High Court vacated, the default clause. The plaintiff's application for giving credit to the amount paid by her to the mortgage bank and to pass a final decree in her favour was not granted by the High Court. The High Court ultimately passed a decree for recission of E the contract for sale and for delivery of the possession with mesne profits'. HELD : The High Court should pass a decree that the plaintiff appellant should deposit within six months the entire consideration together with interest e upto date at the rate of 11 per cent together with an undertaking that she ould give up all her rights llllder the mortgage decree passed by the High Court, except to the extent of the amount actually paid to the bank for taking p tho assigamont. (297 El S I It is open to the court in control of a suit for specific performance to extend the time for deposit and this Court may do so even now to enable the plaintifi' to get the advantage of the agreement to sell in her favour. The disentitling circumstances relied upon by the defendant are offset by the false pleas rai4ed in the course of the suit by him and rightly negatived. Specific performance G is an equitable relief and he who seeks equity can be put on terms to ensure ~ that equity is done to. the opposite party even while granting the relief. , \ !" (295 HJ

¶13

G

¶14

Ia the instant case the assignment of the mortgage is not a guileless dis· charge of the vendor's debt as implied in the agreement to sell but a disingenions disguise to arm henelf with a. mortgage decree to swallow up the property in ease the S]lecific performance litigation fails The appellant acted contrary to the . agreement because !nstelld of paying the mortgage money and extinguishing the mortgage .Oe took an assignment of the equitable mortgage with a view

¶15

H

¶16

_--.......;....----------~

¶17

294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 s.c.R.' ' .A to use it against the respondent. This was not consistent with the understanding assumed under the contract. [296 CJ CIVIL APPEI.I.ATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1993-1994 of 1977· ApJ'f"lls by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22-3-77 of the Madras High Court in C.M.P. Nos. 3449 and 3563 of • 1976. M. R. M. Abdul Karim and S. Shaukat Hussain for the Appellant, A. K. Sen (In CA. 1993)', Mrs. Shyamala Pappu (C.A. 199~ ·C and A. V. Rangam for the Respondent. · t The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S:, .\ KRISHNA IYER, J.-W;ites A. G. Gardiner, if we may start off with a strange flourish, that "the supreme art 'is. to achieve the maximum result with the minimum .... effort. It is the art of the great either D who with a line reveals infinity. It is the art of the great dmmatist who with a significant word shakes the soul. Schiller, said Coleridge, bums a city to create his effect of terror : Shakespeare drops a handkerchief and freezes our blood.(") For this exquisite reason, brevity is the soul of art and justicing including judgment-writing, must practise the art of brevity, especially where no great issue of legjll moment compels long £ exposition. Therefore, we mean to· be brief to the bare bones, with a few facts here and a brief expression of law there, by adopting the technique which "is simply the perfect economy of means to an end". For another reason also the need for parsimony exists. The court is ; in crisis, docket-loed and.fatigued. A judgment' an be brief but n a blank and there 1s no reason to repeat the details of a case where iF tltere is an exhaustive statement in the judgment under appeal, as in this ' case. We adopt these long pages of judicial manuscript and abbl?liate our conclusion in a few pages. The appellant-plaintiff, a woman was on terms of intimacy with the respondent-defendant, a wealthy man who had enjoy,ct a long and intimate relationship with her. The respondent owned a lovely mansion on the Marina in Madras which he agreed to sell to the appellant for 1 a consideration of around Rs. 4 lakhs way back in April 1967. 'fhi8il • • was subject to an equitable mortgage over tlte · property in favour of the South Indian Bank, Coimbatore. When the two separated litigation erupted. A suit for specific performance of the agreement lH • to sell was broughf where both sides took up unrighteous positions, and (I) AG. Gardiner, The Pillars of Society, p. 106.

¶18

K. K. SARASWATHI v. P.S.S. CHETTIAR (Krishna Iyer, J.) 295

¶19

the trial court (the original side of the High Court of Madras) decreed ~ I Rs. 5,000 with interest at the suit directing the plaintiff to deposit the mortgage 11 per cent till the date of payment. amO'imt plus The whole consideration, except the mortgage amount and a sum of Rs. 5,000 had already beeu paid at the time of the agreement and possession had been made over to the plaintiff by the defendant. The , <lecree also provided that the amount should be deposited into court by the time specified therein, failure to do which would result in the suit itself being dismissed. The amount was not deposited within the time limited but some months later the plaintiff paid the mortgage money _ ~to the mortgagee bank and took an assignment of its rights and got her. :ir · ·~elf impleaded as second plaintiff in the suit which, by then, had been instituted by the bank against the present defendant (O.S. No. 154 of 1968). Eventually, the mortgage suit resulted in a decree in favour of the pressnt plaintiff (second plaintiff therein); anti the amount nOIW due bas, by now, swollen to around Rs .. 11 lakhs or so.

¶20

An appeal had been carried by the plaintiff-appellant 10 a Division Bench of the High Court which rejected most of her contentions except -0ne. The court, while affirming that the direction to make a deposit fato court within three months was valid, vacated the default clause, namely, the dismissal of the suit on non-payment within the time. Read ) in the light of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and the rulings on tp.e point which were cited before us, the proper course in this situation was to pass a decree for specific performance, which would, for all practical purposes, be a preliminary decree. The suit wonld continue and be under the control of the court until appropriate motion was made ~~ by either party for passing a final decree. Th~ plaintiff-appellant moved f--<he court by interlocutory applications for giving credit to the amount paid by her to the mortgagee bank and to pass a final decree in her favour. That was not granted. Various skirmishes, essentially of an interlocutory nature, took place. Ultimately, on two applications, one by the plaintifl'-appellant and the other by the defendant-respondent the court made a judgment which is the subject matter of this appeal. The ·plaintiff's application was dismissed and extension of time by way of adjustment of the mortgage amount paid was refused and a decree for ) :=s= ... fu -:.1.,.··tra .. :'.8 for sale was ~;~sed and for delivery of posses-

¶21

)

¶22

' .. !~erfect .· .. to the court in: control of a suit for specific perfor . · to ext . ,.~e time for dposit, and this Court may do so even now to,tifiable the plaintiff to get the advantage of the agreement to sell -in her favour. The disentitling circumstances relied upon by the defen.dant-1'espondent are off-set by the false pleas raised in the course of the

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

B

[1980] 2 s.c.a.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶33

296

¶34

A suit by him and rightly negatived. Nor arei we convinced that the application for consideration and extension of time cannot be read, as in substance it is, as a petition for more time to deposit. Even so, specific performance is an equitable relief and he who seeks equity can be put on terms to .ensure that equity is done to the opposite p_arty even while • granting the relief. The final end of law is justice, and so the means

¶35

B to it too should be informed by equity. That is why he who seeks equity shall do equity. Here, the assignment of the mortgage is not a guideless discharge of the vendor's debt as implied in the agreement to sell but a disingenious disguise to arm herself with a mortgage decree to swallow up the property in case the specific performance litigatici~. _ misfires. To sterilise this decree is necessary equity to which th: ' ~-;

¶36

c appellant must submit herself before she can enjoy the fruits of specific performance.

¶37

' ~-;

¶38

\ In the present case, with all that has been said by both sides-and we have heard at great length arguments by Shri Abdul Karim for the appellant and ShriA. K. Sen and Smt. Shyamala Pappu for the respon-

¶39

D dents-it is clear that an opportunity for the appellant to deposit into court the amount directed by the trial court, together with interest down to date at 11 per cent., should be accorded. We are not discussing the principles of law as they are well-settled and do not require reiteration. The equitable terms we have adverted to earlier must be rememberea

¶40

E in this context. The appellant who was bound to discharge the mortgage acted contrary to the agreement because, instead of paying the· mortgage mopey and extinguishing the mortgage (which was, perhaps, a pardonable exercise, in lieu of deposit into court) she, under some· 1 ill-advice took an assignment of the equitable mortgage with a view to. _J,.. using it against the respondent. Surely, this was not cpnsistent with the.- ~

¶41

(I understanding assumed under the contract. This justifies the view of the High Court that as a price for the indulgence of being allowed to depoSit long after the due date was over the unrighteous · advantage gained by talcing an assignment of the mortgage ,i;hould be nullified. In brief, while the appellant may be allowed to deposit the amount due under the agreement, viz., Rs. 3,45,000 together with interest at 11 per·

¶42

G cent. from April" 1967 up!O date, the mortgage decree in her favour must be extinguished, save to the extent of the cash then paid. The· 1 High Court expressed a slightly drastic though similar view, somewhat_. · , , loosely, thus : '"

¶43

After we have expressed our opinion and dictated this B order, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff orally requests us to permit the Plaintiff to deposit the entire amount as directed by the learned trial Judge in t)l.e Court. Haviog regard to the

•

I

I

K. K. SARASWATHI v. P.S.S. CHETTIAR (Krishna Iyer, !.) 297

¶48

fact that no such stand was taken at any earlier stage and this request has· been orally made only after we have dictated this order, we do not see any justification whatever for complying with this request. We may also point out that there is no actual undertaking given by the plaintiff herself that even if we give such an opportunity to the Plaintiff to deposit the sum of Rs. 3,45,000 into this Court now, she wnt give up her right under the mortgage decree, which she has obtained against the defendant in the present suit in 0.S. No. 154 of 1968.. · (emphasis added)

¶49

~ We agree with the substance of this direction, but without going t1Jat far pass a conditional decree. We should have taken long pages and elaborate argument in substantiation of the course we adopt, bnt fur reasons adduced at the very begiuning, we decline to do so. We gather that in many jnrisdictions the highest Court, which hears the arguments at enormous length and ha.~ the advantage of a complete statement of facts and discussion of law in the judgment under appeal, limits itself to a severe economy. of words in the statement of its reasoning. We regard this as a wholesome step. Natnral justice necessitates full hearing, not a flood of words of forbidding length.

¶50

We direct that a decree be passed that the plaintiff-appellant do deposit within six months from, to-day the entire s.um of Rs. 3,45,000 together with interest due upto date at the rate of 11 per cent., together with an undertaking that she would give up ail her rights under the mortgage decree passed in her favour iu O.S. No. 154 of 1968, except to the extent of the amount actually paid to the South Indian Bank for taking the assignment. If these two conditions are fulfilled, the appeal ~ will stand allowed and a final decree for specific performance passed. In the event of non-<:ompliance with either of these conditions the appeal will stand dismissed with costs.

B

c

D

E

F

P.B.R.