Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD
Mamta Yadav, W/o. Late Rakesh Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Akmal Rizvi, S/o. Hazi Mohammad Alanoor – Respondent
Order :
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
1. The appellants are gravely aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Suit No. 08- A/2014, titled Mohammad Akmal Rizvi versus Mamta Yadav and Others, whereby the learned Trial Court has decreed the suit against the appellants. The impugned Judgment and Decree are contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, based on erroneous appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record, and suffer from serious errors of law as well as jurisdiction. The findings recorded by the learned Court below are perverse, unsustainable, and have resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. Being dissatisfied and prejudiced by the aforesaid Judgment and Decree, the appellant is constrained to prefer the present appeal on the grounds set forth hereinbelow, seeking interference by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.
2. Facts of the case :- The Respondent No.1/Plaintiff instituted a civil suit for specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell dated 26.07.2010 against the Appellants/Defendants No.1 and 2 and Respondent No.3/Defendant No.3 before the Court of t
The court emphasized the necessity for continuous proof of a party's readiness and willingness to perform contract obligations and that unregistered agreements impacting possession must be duly stamp....
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was not established in this case.
The court upheld that an agreement to sell not duly stamped is inadmissible in evidence, and emphasized the necessity of proving continuous readiness and willingness for granting specific performance....
A plaintiff in a specific performance suit must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations throughout, as mandated by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act....
Plaintiff's failure to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract negates entitlement to specific performance under Specific Relief Act.
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.
Continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract is essential for obtaining specific performance; mere execution of an agreement and issuance of notices do not suffice.
To secure a decree for specific performance, plaintiffs must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness, supported by credible evidence, amidst a contract that specifies actionable terms.
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
