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

2025 Supreme(Chh) 413

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Smt.Nirmala Tanwani W/o Shri Om Prakash Tanwani - Appellant
Versus
Sunil Chandra Jeevanmal, S/o P.E. Jeevanmal - Respondent
FA No. 2 of 2007
Decided On : 22-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Manoj Paranjpe with Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. B.P. Sharma with Ms. Nirmala Tandon, Advocates

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 presence of conflicting evidence.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Specific performance of contract - First appeal against decree for specific performance of a sale agreement concerning rice mill - Plaintiff claimed to have paid entire sale consideration; defendant contended agreement was temporary and induced by coercion - Discrepancies in evidence, failure to produce material witnesses led to non-fulfillment of obligations by the plaintiff - Court ruled discretion must be exercised soundly, in view of hardship and unfair advantage; decree set aside. (Paras 34, 39, 41)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff claimed specific performance of a sale agreement for a rice mill, asserting full payment made and possession taken. Defendant alleged coercion and that agreement was provisional, seeking dismissal of the suit.

Findings of Court:
Trial Court's decree was based on improper appreciation of evidence, failing to recognize significant disputes regarding sale consideration and payment, leading to a decision not supported by legal principles regarding specific performance discretion.

Issues: Was the trial Court justified in granting specific performance considering the disputes regarding sale consideration and the nature of the contract?

Ratio Decidendi: Discretion in granting specific performance must reflect sound reasoning aligned with judicial principles; the court found the plaintiff's readiness to perform was undermined by substantial conflicts in evidence.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. key facts of the case and agreement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. defendant's denial of allegations and defenses. (Para 4 , 8)

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 on 20-3-2001 i.e the date of execution of the agreement, the defendant received Rs 50,000/- from the plaintiff as advance amount out of the sale consideration of Rs 5,00,000/- through cheque and the defendant agreed to execute a registered sale deed of the entire rice mill in favour of the plaintiff by 15-7-2001. The plaintiff has also pleaded that he has paid the entire sale consideration on 22.03.2001 and a receipt of the same was also signed by the defendant. It has also been contended that if the plaintiff does not execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by 15-7-2001, then the plaintiff will have the right to get it registered from the court.

3.B)It has been further contended that since the defendant has received the entire sale consideration of the suit property from the plaintiff she has handed over the original sale deed related to the land and also handed over the possession to the plaintiff. It has also been pleaded that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time period and the amount of the prescribed stamp duty was ready with the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff contacted the defendant to register the sale deed before 15-7-2001, for which the defendant asked for time till July, 2002. Since the plaintiff had already paid the entire sale consideration and had also received possession of the rice mill, the plaintiff accepted the verbal request of the defendant. After this, the plaintiff continuously kept in touch with the defendant through his father, his hospital staff and himself and kept asking for registration of the sale deed, but the defendant did not show any interest in registering the sale deed and kept postponing it.

3.C)The plaintiff's further case is that in July 2002, the plaintiff went with his father and contacted the defendant and asked her to register the sale deed of the sold rice mill, but the defendant kept procrastinating for registration of the sale deed. Meanwhile, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant is trying to sell the rice mill to someone else, therefore, the plaintiff, through her advocate, published a general notice in the daily newspaper ‘Dainik Bhaskar’on 5-6-2002.

3.D)The plaintiff's further case is that the plaintiff through his advocate sent a registered notice dated 30-12-2002 to the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff is ready for registration of the sale deed and also mentioned in the notice about fixing the date for appearance of the plaintiff before the Registrar for registration of the sale deed which should be 7 days in advance, so that the plaintiff pays the necessary stamp duty, gets the sale

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