SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Chh) 532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ.
Manish Bajpai - Appellant
Versus
Alkesh Lakde, S/o Shri Duttatrey Lakde – Respondent
FA No. 155 of 2019
Decided On : 03-09-2024

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Manoj Paranjape, Mr. A.V. Shridhar and Mr. Shashwat Mishra, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Vivek Shrivastava and Mr. Sameer Oraon, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court emphasized that specific performance requires proof of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was not adequately addressed by the trial Court.

Headnote:

(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – Specific performance of contract – The trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance based on an agreement dated 22.12.2007, where the plaintiff paid Rs.8,00,000/- towards a total consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- – The defendant denied the execution of the agreement, claiming it was a work contract for glass fitting – The appellate court found that the trial Court failed to frame an issue on the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which is essential for granting specific performance – The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court for proper adjudication. (Paras 1, 5, 20, 21)

(B) Readiness and Willingness – The court emphasized that the plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which includes financial capability and conduct throughout the transaction. (Paras 16, 19)

(c) Discretionary Relief – The court reiterated that specific performance is a discretionary remedy and requires a valid and enforceable contract. (Paras 16, 20)

Facts of the case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land, claiming he paid substantial amounts towards the sale price, while the defendant denied the agreement's existence.

Findings of Court:

The appellate court found that the trial Court did not properly assess the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, leading to an erroneous decree. Issues: The main issues included whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract and whether the trial Court erred in not framing specific issues regarding this.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court held that the trial Court's failure to frame an issue on readiness and willingness was a significant error, necessitating a remand for proper adjudication.

Result: Appeal allowed; matter remitted back to trial Court.

JUDGMENT :

Rajani Dubey, J.

1.The appellant/Defendant has preferred this first appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2019 passed by IX Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.173-A/2011, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for specific performance of contract was allowed.

2.Brief facts of the case, as per the plaint averments, are that the defendant is owner and in possession of land admeasuring 980 sq.ft. of Khasra No.156/25 situated at Mouza Juna Bilaspur, P.H. No.22, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Ward No.32, Ramdas Nagar, Tagore Chowk, Tikrapara, on which a house is built on ground floor and first floor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’). The defendant agreed to sell the suit land to plaintiff for total sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- and request was made by the plaintiff to reduce in writing the agreement, however, the defendant told the plaintiff that the suit land is not recorded in his name, mutation is to be done and after purchasing the suit land the defendant has not got transferred his name. Thereafter, on 22.12.2007, an agreement was executed and earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to defendant by the plaintiff in presence of witnesses and it was agreed to pay balance consideration at the time of execution of sale deed. After one month of agreement, defendant came to the plaintiff and requested him for Rs.3,00,000/- on account of some emergency then the plaintiff on 29.01.2008 paid the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as demanded by the defendant, in respect of which an acknowledgment was given by the defendant in agreement executed on 22.12.2007. Similarly, the defendant on account of exigency obtained Rs.3,00,000/- on 27.03.2008 from plaintiff, acknowledgment of which marked in agreement by the defendant. Thus, out of the total consideration amount, Rs.8,00,000/- was received by the defendant till 27.03.2008. After passing considerable period, when no information was received from the defendant, the plaintiff went to the house of defendant then the defendant again explaining the reason of non-availability of necessary documents assured him to execute sale deed after making necessary documents available. It was further pleaded that the defendant kept procrastinating by making one excuse or another and new fact was brought before him that the defendant had taken loan from UCO Bank due to which the suit land is mortgage with bank and the execution of sale deed could be possible only after repayment of loan and No Objection Certificate by the Bank. For this, the defendant again sought 3-4 months’ time and assurance was given to execute the sale deed by the month of January, 2011. It was further pleaded in the plaint that a proposal was put-up before the defendant that if the defendant did not have the fund to repay the bank loan, then the defendant out of the total consideration amount of the suit land, can obtain balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff for repaying the bank loan so that sale deed of the suit land could be executed in favour of the plaintiff but the defendant did not reply to the plaintiff’s proposal. It has been further pleaded in the plaint that various efforts were made for execution of the agreement and when the attempts turned futile, the civil suit for specific performance of contract was filed.

3.In written statement, the defendant denying the plaint averments stated that neither any agreement to sell suit land was executed by defendant with plaintiff nor any amount was obtained by him. It was averred that the plaintiff is proprietor of Gajanand Glass whom the work of glass fitting of his house was entrusted. Due to the cordial relation between them, on being asked to execute an agreement for doing the glass work, a stamp of Rs 50/- was purchased by the defendant and given to the plaintiff, thereafter it was told by the plaintiff to put his signature in the blank space below the stamp and whatever matter needs

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top