Back
2006(2) C.G.L.J. 255
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
S. Sinha, J.
Viseshar Yadav – Appellant
Vs.
Govind Swami – Respondent
First Appeal No. 10 of 1994
Decided on : 10/8/2006
Specific Performance - Property Agreement - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 96 - Specific Relief Act - Section 20, 16(c), Explanation (ii) - [SUIT HOUSE, AGREEMENT, PROPERTY NATURE] - [Code of Civil Procedure - Section 96, Specific Relief Act - Section 20, 16(c), Explanation (ii)] - The court discussed the nature of the property, the validity of the agreement, and the proof of the agreement. It highlighted the legal provisions related to joint property agreements, the discretionary relief of specific performance, and the requirement for clear and certain evidence of the agreement. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of proof of a valid agreement and the defendant's admission of receiving a sum of money from the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of a house. The defendant denied the agreement and claimed the property was joint family property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property was joint at the time of the alleged agreement and the agreement was not enforceable without consent from other co-sharers. The court also found that the proof of the agreement was not clear and certain.
Issues: Nature of the property, validity and proof of the agreement, entitlement to specific performance, and repayment of the amount received by the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an agreement for a specified area of joint family property is not enforceable without consent from other co-sharers. It emphasized the need for clear and certain evidence of the agreement for specific performance. The court also applied the principle that the conduct of the person seeking specific performance must be blemishless.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance but ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 4000 with interest.
S.K. Sinha, J.
1. This is the defendant's first appeal filed Under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It arises out of the judgment and decree dated 14-10-1993 passed by second Addl. District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 3-A/1990. By the said judgment and decree, the trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 30-5-1988.
2. The brief facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement dated 30-5-1988 allegedly entered into between the plaintiff and defendant for sale of a house situated in Talapara. Bilaspur, for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/- The plaintiff inter alia pleaded that after entering into the written agreement dated 30-5-1988 (Ex. P. 1), a sum of Rs. 5000/- was received as an advance by the defendant and it was agreed between them that a registered sale deed shall be executed within a period of one year from the said date, after receiving the remaining amount of consideration. The plaintiff further pleaded that thereafter on 27-10-1988, the defendant again received a sum of Rs. 13,614/- from him and made an endorsement to this effect on the back portion of the agreement dated 30-5-1988. He, thereafter, again received a sum of Rs. 1800/-from the plaintiff and in this way, he received a total amount of Rs. 20,414/-, but he did not execute the sale deed. On his refusal, the plaintiff served a notice dated 29-1-1990 and requested the defendant to execute the sale deed within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, but even after the receipt of notice on 2-2-1990, the defendant did not turn up and in this manner, he made a breach of contract as he has declined to perform the same. The plaintiff further pleaded that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but due to non-Cooperation of the defendant the sale deed could not be executed which gave rise to a cause of action to the plaintiff to institute the instant suit.
3. The defendant filed his written statement denying the contentions of the plaintiff. It was pleaded by him that he was not the absolute owner of the suit house as the suit house is his ancestral and joint family property and his minor sons are also the joint owners thereof. He also pleaded that there has been no partition of the said property. He further pleaded that he has never entered into any such agreement like Ex. P. 1 dated 30-5-1988 and he has never received the advance amount of Rs. 5000/-as is alleged, in the plaint. He also pleaded that the suit house situates in mohalla Talapara and is a property of very high rate, therefore, question of entering into agreement to sell in sum of Rs. 25,000/- does not arise. He further pleaded that in fact, a sum of Rs. 1000/- was taken as a loan by him from the plaintiff and the plaintiff in security of the said loan got his signature on a blank stamp paper and it appears that thereafter, the contents of the alleged agreement have been typed over the said document by the plaintiff in collusion with other persons. About the allegations of again receiving the amount Rs. 13,614/- on 27-10-1988, the defendant pleaded that in fact, he used to play Chits (Beecees) and some amount was needed for it and it was agreed between them that periodically needed amount of Beeces shall be paid by the plaintiff and when the return amount of Beecee shall be received to the defendant, the plaintiff shall retain his amount and the balance would be paid to him and on this only, he had put his signature on the said document. About Rs. 1800/-, he pleaded that he has never taken any such amount from the plaintiff as is alleged in para 4 of the plaint. It is stated that the entire amount taken by him has been repaid to the plaintiff.
4. The learned trial Court framed various issues in this case and after recording evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the defendant had entered into the said agreement to sell, with the plaintiff and h
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
