Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS
Nirmala Tanwani W/o Shri Om Prakash Tanwani – Appellant
Versus
Sunil Chandra Jeevanmal, S/o P.E. Jeevanmal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
1. This is defendant’s first appeal filed under Section 96 of the C.P.C. challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2006 passed by the learned 11th Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 90-A/2004 by which the learned trial Court allowed the suit filed by the plaintiff and directed the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
2. The parties are referred to as described in the civil suit before the learned trial Court.
3. The brief facts as reflected from the plaint’s averments are that:-
3.A)The plaintiff filed the civil suit for specific performance of the contract in respect of property namely Rice Mill known as Gurudev Rice Mill situated at Khasra No. 360/105 Area 1.54 Acre at village Tulsi, Bhatapara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’), agreement was executed on 20.03.2001 contending that the defendant owns the suit property and she has executed an agreement with the plaintiff on 20-3-2001 to sell the said rice mill along with land, house, pump, boiler and other complete equipment of the rice mill for sale consideration of Rupees five lakh rupees. It is also the case of the plaintiff that
Discretion in granting specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act requires sound judicial reasoning, considering hardship and fairness to both parties, especially in the presenc....
The grant of specific performance requires the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract and the court's discretion is governed by principles of equity and justi....
The court's discretion to grant specific performance is not arbitrary; it must consider unforeseen hardship to the defendant at the time of contract execution, not merely subsequent changes in circum....
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 ....
Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 mandates readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff seeking specific performance and the plaintiff has to prove the same.
The court clarified that under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, discretion to deny specific performance must be based on clear evidence of hardship, which was not presented by the defendants.
Specific performance can be granted when the buyer has made substantial payments and the seller's refusal to execute the sale deed is unjustified, even if specific issues on readiness and willingness....
The court emphasized that specific performance is discretionary and must consider the fairness of the transaction and the conduct of the parties involved.
In discretionary specific performance cases, courts must balance hardship and enforceability; mere proof of agreement does not guarantee relief when it risks severe hardship for the defendant.
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
