Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SOHAN SINGH versus SARWAN SINGH AND ORS.

Decided
19 August 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 754 · 1996 INSC 901
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This special leave petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh made in Second Appeal No. 333/96. The admitted position is that the petitioner had entered into an agreement on June 14, 1986 for sale of land admeasuring 6 Kanals 13 marlas for consideration of Rs. 85,000 per killa and received Rs. 6,000 as earnest money and balance amount was agreed to be paid on registration. The sale deed was to be executed by July 15, 1987. Since the petitioner failed to execute the sale deed, ·the respondent filed suit for specific performance. All the courts below have concurrently found, as a fact, that respondent had presented a bank draft for the balance consideration of Rs. 64,000 at the time of registration and that the petitioner refused to receive the same. Bank draft is as good a payment of the consideration as cash. The petitioner committed breach of the conditions in the performance of the contract. Accordingly, the decree for specific performance was granted. It is contended for the petitioner that payment by way of bank draft is not payment of the consideration by cash at the time of the registration of sale deed by sub-Registrar. Therefore, the petitioner committed no breach of any part of the contract. On the other hand, the respondent-plaintiff committed breach of contract in not paying cash consideration at the time of registration in terms of the agreement. The courts below have committed manifest error of law in decreeing the suit for specific performance of the contract. We find no force in the contention. The payment by way of bank draft is as good a payment as cash-in-hand. Instead of bringing the cash, he had brought bank draft. Under these circumstances, the demand for payment of cash by the petitioner would be had from the bank who would honour the same on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner rightly presented the bank draft at the time of negotiation which is legal tender of cash payment to the vendor/petitioner. The refusal for receiving bank draft at the time of registration of the petitioner, therefore, is a breach of the covenant in terms of the agreement. The courts below have not committed by manifest error of law to decree the suit for specific performance warranting interference.

pp. 754–755, margin E

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. T.N.A. Petition dismissed.

p. 755, margin D