Back
RAJANI DUBEY, SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL
Priyabratta Choudhary, S/o Kheermohan Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
Jayshankar Sahu, S/o D. R. Sahu – Respondent
Key Points: - The court held that a written contract prevails over oral agreements and that restitution of part performance amounts is warranted. (!) (!) - The plaintiffs paid Rs.35,70,000 towards part performance of the sale agreement and the defendant retained this amount; the court directed return of this amount with interest. (!) (!) - The judgment discusses unjust enrichment and restitution, emphasizing that the defendant must return amounts paid toward part performance. (!) (!) - The trial court had dismissed the suit for specific performance; on appeal, the court considered Section 16(e) and Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act in relation to specific performance and restitution. (!) (!) (!) - The appellate court partly allowed the appeal by directing restitution of Rs.35,70,000 to the plaintiffs at 6% interest from the date of filing of the suit. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
Per Rajani Dubey, J.
1. The appellants have filed the instant appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2018 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Durg, District- Durg Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No. 6388A/2013 whereby the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for grant of decree of Specific Performance of Contract has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the appeal are that the the appellants/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for Specific Performance of Contract in respect of the property i.e. the building block No.88, plot No.10 Motilal Nehru Nagar (East) Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg. The claim in the suit was based on the ground that the plaintiffs are the permanent resident of Bhilai District Durg. The plaintiff No.1 is a Software Engineer working at Bangalore and he is earning a very handsome salary i.e. Rs. 1 lakh/month. The plaintiff No.2 is holding the degree of MBBS and at the relevant time was prosecuting his studies at Bangalore. The father and power of attorney holder of the plaintiffs was Assistant General Manager in Bhilai Steel Plant who retired from the said post in the year 2010 and he has obtained Rs.60 lakhs towards
The court ruled that a written contract prevails over oral agreements, and unjust enrichment principles require the return of amounts paid towards part performance of a contract.
In specific performance cases, the plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness, and without necessary permissions, the sale cannot be enforced, leading to recovery of amounts paid due to unjust en....
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove both readiness and willingness to perform the contract, failing which the court may order a refund of earnest money instead.
The plaintiff must convincingly demonstrate readiness and willingness to fulfill contractual obligations for specific performance.
Specific performance requires all parties' consent in an agreement; plaintiffs must prove readiness and willingness to fulfill contractual obligations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that time was not the essence of the contract, and the conduct of the parties indicated an extension of time for performance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's failure to obtain necessary documents and contradictory actions led to the dismissal of the specific performance claim. Additi....
The plaintiff's continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as well as the concept of unjust enrichment, were central legal principles established in the judgment.
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
