Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL, JJ.
Priyabratta Choudhary, S/o Kheermohan Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
Jayshankar Sahu, S/o D.R. Sahu – Respondent
FA No. 427 of 2018
Decided on : 25-10-2024
(A) Specific Relief Act – Section 16(e) and Section 20 – Specific performance of contract – Plaintiffs sought specific performance for property sale agreement dated 08.03.2013 for Rs.45 lakhs, having paid Rs.35.70 lakhs – Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the actual consideration was Rs.72 lakhs – Court emphasized that oral agreements cannot prevail over written ones – Plaintiffs proved readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract – Court directed defendant to return Rs.35.70 lakhs with interest. (Paras 4, 12, 14, 15, 16)
(B) Unjust Enrichment – Court discussed principles of unjust enrichment and restitution, emphasizing that the defendant retained the amount paid by plaintiffs for part performance, which must be returned. (Paras 13, 14)
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 retiral benefits. The plaintiffs are capable of purchasing the property in question.
The agreement dated 08.03.2013 was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs for sale of the property in question for a consideration of Rs.45 lakhs. The property was mortgaged with the HDFC Bank and the original papers of the property were lying with the HDFC Bank and for releasing/redemption the said property, the defendant No.1 was dire need of money and therefore the plaintiffs have paid Rs.5 lakhs on 03.10.2012, Rs.10 lakhs on 05.10.2012, Rs.5 lakhs on 08.03.2013 and Rs.15.70 lakhs on 09.04.2013, total Rs.35.70 lakhs were paid towards the part performance. The agreement was executed on 08.03.2013. Despite of repeated requests, the sale-deed was not executed by defendant No.1. After payment of the said amount the defendant No.1 got released the mortgaged property from the HDFC Bank. After releasing the property from mortgage, defendant No.1 obtained the original documents from the Bank and an application for transfer of the property in favour of the plaintiffs was moved before the Corporation on 28.02.2013 and in the said application, the defendant No.1 submitted his affidavit to the effect that he has entered into an agreement to sale the property in favour of the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs.45 lakhs. The plaintiffs vide cheque No. 488598 dated 28.06.2013 has paid an amount of Rs.3.99,465/-towards the transfer charge to Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. After completion of all the formalities, an NOC was issued by the Corporation on 19.08.2013 and thereafter, the agreement dated 08.03.2013 was executed for sale of the property in question. An amount of Rs.35,70,000/- has already been paid out of Rs.45 lakhs, but despite repeated requests, defendant No.1 did not execute the sale-deed, therefore the notice was served on the defendant No.1 on 22.05.2013 and in response to the said notice, the defendant No.1 has admitted the payment of Rs.35,70,000/- and also admitted the total amount of consideration i.e. Rs.45 lakhs. In the said reply dated 22.10.2013 (Ex. D/3), the defendant No.1 with malafide intention alleged that the total amount of consideration was Rs.72 lakhs and refused to execute the sale-deed. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the civil suit for grant of decree of Specific Performance of Contract.
Respondent No.1/defendant filed his written statement and denied all the averments made in the plaint. The defendant though admitted the signature and execution of the agreement, but denied the contents of the agreement and it was alleged that though an amount of Rs.45 lakhs has been shown in the written agreement but it was decided between the parties that the amount of consideration would be Rs.72 lakhs and the plaintiffs were required to p
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
