IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Rajani Dubey, Narendra Kumar Vyas, JJ.
Krishna Devi Agrawal W/o Suresh Kumar Agrawal- Appellant
Versus
Vishnu Soni son of Late Ramcharan Soni- Respondent
FA No. 102 of 2019
Decided On : 14-02-2025
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Specific performance of contract - Plaintiff's suit for specific performance dismissed by trial court on grounds of limitation and failure to prove readiness and willingness - Agreement executed on 17.10.2010, suit filed on 13.01.2014, deemed time barred - Court found that plaintiff failed to establish financial readiness and willingness to perform contract obligations - Court emphasized that intention of parties must be gathered from the terms of the contract, not subsequent conduct. (Paras 1, 4, 20, 24)
(B) Specific Performance - Essential ingredients - Plaintiff must prove valid agreement, breach by defendant, and readiness and willingness to perform - Court noted that the plaintiff's failure to provide evidence of financial capacity undermined her claim. (Paras 5, 20)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell land with the defendant on 17.10.2010, paying Rs.10,00,000/- as earnest money, with a sale deed to be executed by 15.01.2011. The plaintiff alleged the defendant delayed execution despite repeated requests, leading to the suit filed in 2014.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the suit time barred and the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract, dismissing the suit.
Issues: The main issues included whether the plaintiff proved the agreement's execution and her readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and whether the suit was time barred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff did not demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform her obligations under the contract, and the suit was time barred as it was filed after the stipulated period. The trial court's findings were upheld as not perverse or illegal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Judgment :
(Rajani Dubey, J.)
1. The plaintiff/appellant has preferred this first appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2018 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Raigarh (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.12-A/2014, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant herein for specific performance of contract was dismissed. The parties to this appeal shall be referred herein as per their description before the learned trial Court.
2. Brief facts of the case, as per the plaint averments, are that on 17.10.2010, defendant No.1 executed an agreement to sell of land bearing Kh. No.2/10/1(5/5/2) area 0.117 hectare, 12585 sq.ft., P.H. No.13 situated at village Baikunthpur, Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) (for short ‘the suit land’) which was in his possession for sale consideration of Rs.438/- per sq. ft. and received Rs.10,00,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff, and it was agreed between the parties that the sale deed would be executed after receiving balance consideration from the plaintiff till 15.01.2011. It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff requested the defendant No.1 many times to receive balance sale consideration of Rs.45,12,230/- and execute the sale deed, but it was told by the defendant No.1 that he would inform the plaintiff after receiving map and photocopy of sale. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and comply with the contract dated 17.10.2010. The plaintiff also sent a notice to defendant No.1 on 14.10.2013 through his Advocate, and on receipt of notice, the defendant No.1 assured the plaintiff that he would obtain copy of sale and map and get the sale deed executed within one month, but till date the defendant No.1 did not comply with it. Therefore, the suit for specific performance of contract was filed by the plaintiff.
3. The defendant No. 01 has filed written statement to the effect that defendant No.1 has not executed agreement dated 17.10.2010 with the plaintiff with regard to the suit property and he has not received Rs.10,00,000/- as advance from the plaintiff. It was also averred that the defendant No.1 has not executed any agreement or any deal with the plaintiff. There is no cause of action in the suit. The suit is time barred and no ad valorem court fee has been paid, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the suit is time barred and the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. Hence, this first appeal filed by the plaintiff.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submits that the learned trial Court recorded its finding that the plaintiff had established the execution of agreement to sell by the defendant No.1, which was binding on the parties in respect of the property described in the suit and the defendant No.1 also received advance amount of Rs.10 Lakhs but the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that she was ready and willing to perform her part of contract, which is at all not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel further submits that in a case of specific performance the plaintiff has to prove valid agreement of sale, breach of contract by defendant and readiness & willingness on the part of plaintiff to perform his/her part of obligation in terms of the contract, and in the present case the proper issue was framed by the learned trial Court and the issue No.1 with regard to execution of agreement was proved in favour of the plaintiff. The only obligation cast in the agreement on the plaintiff was to pay the balance sale consideration on the date of registration and the plaintiff has been ready and willing at all material time to pay the balance sale consideration amount to the defendant No.1 on execution of the deed of conveyance of the suit property. Even the plaintiff through his
The plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations for specific performance; failure to do so results in dismissal of the suit.
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.
The plaintiff's failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract led to the dismissal of the appeal for specific performance.
Time is of the essence of a contract if the parties have agreed that it is or if the circumstances of the case show that it is.
Continuous readiness and willingness from contract execution to judgment essential for specific performance claims, substantiated evidence is necessary to challenge agreements.
Plaintiff's failure to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract negates entitlement to specific performance under Specific Relief Act.
The court affirmed that a plaintiff must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract to be entitled to specific performance of the agreement; otherwise, claims may be dismi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.