Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD
Swadhin Nag Chaudhary, S/o. M.S. Nag Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
Ajay Francis @ Subba, S/o. Mical Francis – Respondent
Order :
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2020 passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 164-A/2016, titled Swadhin Nag Chaudhary v. Ajay Francis, whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed.
2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, as pleaded by the appellant in the appeal, are that the appellant herein instituted a civil suit for specific performance of contract against the respondent, seeking enforcement of an agreement to sell in respect of immovable property. The learned Trial Court, however, dismissed the said suit primarily on the ground that the agreement to sell, marked as Ex.P/10, was not duly stamped in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and, therefore, was held to be inadmissible in evidence. On this basis, the learned Trial Court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to a decree for specific performance. The appellant/plaintiff had filed the suit praying for a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated
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....
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....
The plaintiff must demonstrate both readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, including financial capacity, and agreements must be duly stamped to be enforceable.
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 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.
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.
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must continuously demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations; failure to do so precludes the granting of such relief.
The subsequent rise in price and the defendant's resistance were not valid grounds to deny the relief of specific performance. The trial court rightly exercised its discretion in granting the relief ....
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
