Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Soumen Sen, Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, JJ.
Amala Dutta Since Deceased Represented By Sipra Halder And Others - Appellant
Versus
Kabyashree Mukherjee - Respondent
F.A. 150 of 2010
Decided On : 29-09-2022
Specific Performance - Contract - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20(c)
Fact of the Case:
Smt. Amala Dutta agreed to sell a piece of land to Smt. Kabyashree Mukherjee. Smt. Dutta refused to execute a deed of sale despite receiving earnest money. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that an agreement for sale was entered into by the parties, and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving her claim that she signed blank papers. The court exercised discretion under Section 20(c) of the Specific Relief Act and granted the decree for specific performance of the contract.
Issues: The suit's maintainability, cause of action, validity of the agreement for sale, plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform, entitlement to a decree, and other reliefs under law and equity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the equities and considered the comparative hardship caused to the defendant. It emphasized the plaintiff's keen participation in the proceedings and the inadequacies of the law to deal with long delays. The court exercised discretion under Section 20(c) of the Specific Relief Act and granted the decree for specific performance of the contract.
Final Decision: The court modified the judgment and decree, directing the plaintiff to deposit a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- to the trial court within two months. The defendants were to execute and register the deed of sale and deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff. Failure to make the payment within two months would result in the dismissal of the suit.
JUDGMENT
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J. - This appeal assails the judgement and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 3rd Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 81 of 1996.
2. Briefly stated, Smt. Amala Dutta during her life time on 27th September, 1993, agreed to sell a piece of land more particularly described in the schedule of the plaint, to Smt. Kabyashree Mukherjee and an agreement to that effect was entered into by and between the parties at a consideration of Rs. 4,15,000/- and Amala Dutta on that date received a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards earnest money. On the same day Amala Dutta sold part of the property being 220 G.T. Road (South) P.S. Shibpur, Howrah and transferred the same in favour of Smt. Kabyashree Mukherjee by a registered deed of sale executed and registered on 27th September, 1993.
3. However, Smt. Amala Dutta refused to discharge her part of obligation in terms of the agreement by executing a deed of sale despite being requested by the plaintiff, expressing her readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract in terms of the said agreement. Smt. Amala Dutta however, in writing denied to have entered into any agreement for sale as claimed by Smt. Kabyashree Mukherjee. It was specifically stated that Smt. Amala Dutta received a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on the date, when she executed the deed of sale, from the plaintiff towards loan and not towards part of consideration money for selling out of the property in suit. The plaintiff thereafter, filed the suit for specific performance of contract. Smt. Amala Dutta in a bid to contest the suit filed written statement which was subsequently amended. In her written statement, Smt. Amala Dutta denied all material allegations made against her in the plaint. According to defendant she was in need of money and decided to sell a portion of her property to the plaintiff and she also took a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as loan. The defendant depicted herself as an illiterate lady unable to read Bengali script written in long hand and did not know ABC of English language. She obliged the plaintiff and her husband by putting her signature of some blank papers including one stamp paper on the understanding that those papers would be used for the purpose of documentation of loan transaction, but those blank papers including the stamp paper was converted into an agreement for sale.
4. It is further contended that the suit property is the only residential house of the defendant, she has no place of abode other than the suit property. The alleged agreement is nothing but an unconscionable bargain bereft of equity and good conscience. The defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. Learned Trial Court after considering the pleadings of the parties framed following six issues:-
1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Has the plaintiff any cause of action?
3. Is there any valid and legal agreement for sale entered into by the defendant with the plaintiff on 27.09.1993?
4. Is the plaintiff all along ready and willing to perform her part of the contract dt. 27.09.1993?
5. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree as prayed for?
6. To what other relief or reliefs, if any, the plaintiff is entitled under law and equity?
6. After considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and other witnesses including the son of the defendant, learned Trial Court was pleased to answer all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and passed the judgement and decree impugned.
7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such judgement and decree the defendant Smt. Amala Dutta preferred the appeal. During pendency of the present appeal Smt. Amala Dutta, the original defendant passed away and her legal heirs have stepped into her shoes.
8. Assailing the impugned judgement Mr. Dipak Kr. Sengupta, learned Senior Counsel representing the substituted appellants submits that learned Trial Court did not appreciate the content of Exhibit-4 in its proper perspective. By writing the lett
The court exercised discretion under Section 20(c) of the Specific Relief Act and granted the decree for specific performance of the contract, balancing equities and considering comparative hardship.
Mere escalation of price does not constitute hardship to the vendor, and the conduct of the parties and the terms of the agreement are crucial in determining entitlement to specific performance.
The grant of specific performance requires the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract and the court's discretion is governed by principles of equity and justi....
The court upheld the agreement to sell's execution and the plaintiff's readiness to perform the contract. Specific performance granted with enhanced consideration due to market changes reflecting the....
Judicial discretion in specific performance cases necessitates consideration of the parties' motives and circumstances, rather than mere legal compliance.
Judicial discretion in specific performance cases requires careful consideration of all circumstances, including fairness and equitable relief.
The absence of signature proof does not invalidate a specific performance decree if the plaintiff demonstrates readiness and willingness to perform the contract as required under the Specific Relief ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
