Laddu Gope vs Manoj Kuer Sharma - 2012 Supreme(Pat) 1015

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(Pat) 1015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
V. Nath, J.
Laddu Gope son of late Kanshi Gope, resident of Mohall-Bhawar Pokhar, P.O.-Bankipore, P.S.-Pirbahore, Town and District-Patna (in all) – Appellants
Vs.
Manoj Kuer Sharma son of Sri Nand Kumar Sharma residing in the house of Kumud Sammritte, Nageshwar Colony, Boring Canal Road, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Patna & Ors. (in 119)
Ashwini Kr. Sharma son of Sri Nand m Kumar Sharma, residing in the house of Kumud Sammritte, Nageshwar Colony, Boring Canal Road, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Patna & Ors. (in 120)
Smt. Indramani Sharma wife of Sri Nand Kumar Sharma resident of Mahalla-Mithapur, P.S.-Jakkanpur, Town and District-Patna & Ors. (in 121) - Respondents
First Appeal Nos. 119-121 of 1987
Decided on : 7.8.2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants: Mr. Kali Das Chatterjee, B.K. Bariar, Ajay Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Dronacharya, with Mr. Rajendra Pd.

Headnote:
Specific Performance - Contract - Specific Relief Act - [READYNESS AND WILLINGNESS] - [Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act] - The court found that the plaintiffs had continuously shown readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiffs' conduct, including sending legal notices, publication of notice in the newspaper, and obtaining permission from the competent authority for sale of the suit lands, demonstrated their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. The court held that the relief claimed by the plaintiffs was not barred under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
Fact of the Case:

The three appeals arose from judgments and decrees granting specific performance of contract to the plaintiffs against the defendant. The plaintiffs claimed specific performance of contract based on registered agreements for sale executed by the defendant, alleging that the defendant avoided executing the sale deeds as agreed, despite repeated requests and legal notices. The defendant alleged that the agreements were obtained by intoxicating him and challenged the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiffs continuously showed readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The court also held that the agreements for sale sought to be enforced were for the benefit of the minor plaintiffs and could not be denied at the instance of the defendant.
Issues: The issues included the plaintiffs' continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, and the legal competence of the minors to enter into the agreements for sale.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs had continuously shown readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The court also held that the agreements for sale sought to be enforced were for the benefit of the minor plaintiffs and could not be denied at the instance of the defendant.
Final Decision: The three appeals were dismissed, and the impugned judgment and decree were upheld. No order was made as to costs.

Judgment

V. Nath, J.

These three appeals arise out of the three judgments and decrees dated 23.12.1986, passed by Sub-Judge-VII, Patna in T.S. No. 73/83, T.S. No. 74/83 and T.S. No. 75/83 by which the decree for specific performance of contract has been granted to the respective plaintiffs against the common defendant with regard to the parts of the same plot belonging to him. All the three appeals have been filed by the defendant Laddu Gope as appellant. As common questions of law and fact are involved in all the three appeals, the prayer of the parties to the appeals for analogous hearing of three appeals was allowed and accordingly the aforesaid three appeals have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In all the three suits i.e. T.S. No. 73/83, T.S. No. 74/83, T.S. No. 75/83, the defendants are common and the relief for specific performance of contract has been prayed against the defendant no. 1, Laddu Gape on the basis of the three registered agreements for sale executed by him in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also belong to one family and are the sons and wife of Nand Kumar Sharma. In the T.S. No. 73/83 Manoj Kumar Sharma son of Nand Kumar Sharma is the plaintiff and has claimed specific performance of contract against the defendant no. 1 on the basis of the registered agreement for sale dated 14.8.1982 by which 15 Dhurs, 15 Dhurkis of Plot No. 869 of Khata No. 66 has been agreed to be sold by the defendant no. 1 for Rs.37,800/- out of which Rs.10,000/- has been paid as the advance money. The T.S. No. 74/83 has been filed by the plaintiff Ashwani Kumar Sharma son of Nand Kumar Sharma claiming for the decree for specific performance of contract on the basis of the registered agreement for sale dated 3.8.1982 by which the defendant no. 1 has agreed to sell 1 katha of Plot No. 869 of Khata No. 66 for total consideration money of Rs.48,000/-, after receiving Rs.12,000/- by way of earnest money. The T.S. No. 75/83 has been filed by Smt. Indramani Sharma wife of Nand Kumar Sharma claiming specific performance of contract on the basis of the registered agreement for sale dated 3.8.1982 by which defendant no. 1 has agreed to sell 1 katha of Plot No. 869 of Khata No. 66 for total amount of 48,000/-, after receiving Rs.12,000/- as advance money.

3. The plaintiffs' case in all the three suits, in short, is that the defendant no.1-Laddu Gape is the owner of the suit land and has agreed to sell the same with the plaintiffs and has executed the three registered deeds of agreement for sale after taking advance money. The plaintiffs have further alleged that the sale deeds were agreed to be executed within three months after the permission from the authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling Act but after the grant of permission, the defendant no. 1 started avoiding the execution of the sale deeds as agreed even after the repeated requests. Then the legal notices as well as telegrams were sent by the plaintiffs to him reiterating the request to execute the sale deeds. Ultimately the plaintiffs got a notice published in daily Hindi Newspaper "Aryawart" but the defendant no. 1 even thereafter failed to perform his part of contract by executing the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also averred in the plaint their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. On these basic facts, the three suits were filed seeking the relief.

4. The defendant no. 1 in his written statement has not denied the execution and registration of the deeds of agreements for sale in favour of the plaintiffs by him for the suit land but has alleged that the same have been obtained by Nand Kumar Sharma father of the plaintiffs in T.S. No. 73/83 and T.S. No. 74/83 and husband of the plaintiff in T.S. No. 75/83 by intoxicating him with wine. It is the case of the defendant no. 1 that he has got addiction for wine and taking its advantage, Nand Kumar Sharma with his sons and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis