IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
Manishkumar Bhogilal Patel – Appellant
Versus
Jaydeepsinh Ganpatji Thakor – Respondent
R/Appeal From Order No. 100 of 2018 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2018
Decided on : 16-11-2022
Appeal from Order - Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 151 - Special Civil Suit No. 37 of 2017 - Registration Act - Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of the Holding Act, 1947 - Specific Relief Act - [S. Kaladevi Vs. V. R. Somasundaram and others (2010) 5 SCC 401, Bharatkumar Ishwarlal Miterani and others Vs. Girishbhai Manubhai and others (2013) Appeal from Order No.36 of 2012, R. K. Mohammed Ubaidullah and others Vs. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab and others (2000) 6 SCC 402, Suleman Aadamjibhai Nagariya Vs. Legal Heirs of deceased Mohammad Yakubmiya Mohsinmiya (2018) SCC Online Guj 3679, Mohd. Mehtab Khan and others Vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and others (2013) 9 SCC 221]
Fact of the Case:
The original plaintiffs filed a Special Civil Suit for specific performance of two unregistered agreements to sell executed in 2007 and for cancellation of a registered sale deed executed in 2016. The Trial Court granted interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court's order was erroneous as it failed to consider the legal aspects and the plaintiffs' lack of readiness and willingness to perform the agreement. The unregistered agreement to sell was not admissible in evidence, and the suit was not maintainable.
Issues: Validity of suit for specific performance based on unregistered agreement, plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform the agreement, admissibility of unregistered agreement in evidence, and maintainability of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: An unregistered agreement to sell is not admissible in evidence and cannot be used for specific performance. Plaintiffs must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the agreement. A suit for specific performance cannot be maintained solely on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell.
Final Decision: The appeal from order is allowed, and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Trial Court is directed to decide the suit on its merits and in accordance with the law, considering oral and documentary evidence and hearing the respective parties.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Appeal from Order is preferred by the appellant herein – original defendant no.6 under Order 43, Rule 1 r/w. Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging the impugned order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar below application at Exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 37 of 2017.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the original plaintiffs – respondents no.1 and 2 herein filed Special Civil Suit No.37 of 2017 for specific performance of two agreement to sell executed on 30.07.2007 and 04.08.2007 with respondents no.3 to 7 and on the basis of the said agreement to sell, respondents no.1 and 2 filed the said suit along with ancillary relief of cancellation of registered sale deed executed on 18.06.2016 with respect to the agriculture land bearing Block No.176 admeasuring 4728 square meter situated at Village: Randeson, District: Gandhinagar. The plaintiffs have executed one unregistered agreement to sell on 30.07.2007 before the Notary and original defendant no.1 and present respondent no.3 i.e. legal heirs of Juhaji Shivaji Thakor for 1/8th share of agriculture land bearing Block No.176 admeasuring 1176 square meter situated at Village: Randeson, District: Gandhinagar. It is further averred by the original plaintiffs that on the same day, one another agreement to sell executed between the original defendant no.4 – respondent no.6 herein for the agriculture land admeasuring 2352 square meters of the northern side, which is undivided ancestral property. That in both the agreement to sell, no time period of performance was mentioned and as alleged within a period of two months, when the land in question may eligible, to execute the agreement to sell. That the original plaintiffs produced an order on the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal whereby the Tribunal allowed the revision application of the original owner and the dispute with regard to tenancy between original owner came to an end on 23.03.2015 and as per document at Annexure – B, the time period of executing the sale deed is commenced but the plaintiffs never did any act of performance within stipulated time period or more over till the date of execution of sale deed dated 11.03.2016.
2.1 The original plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid suit along with the application at Exhibit 5 for interim injunction. The Trial Court allowed the application at Exhibit 5 and directed to maintain status-quo granted earlier with respect to entire land admeasuing 9409 square meter of Block No.176 situated at Village: Randeson and confirmed said order till final disposal of the suit.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
4. Heard Mr.Kartik Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.M. B. Parikh, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.5.1, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and Mr.Riddhesh Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2.
5. Mr.Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the findings given by the Trial Court is against the record of the case, contrary to law and suffers from non-application of mind. He has submitted that the plaintiffs filed the suit on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell which is not sustainable in the eyes of law as per the Registration Act and the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. He has submitted that as per the say of the plaintiffs, they have entered into an agreement with regard to the land admeasuring 4728 square meters of Block No.176 admeasuring 9409 square meters, however, the plaintiffs have shown the entire land as a suit property which is void ab-initio and they have no right to file such suit of whole land of Block No.176. He has submitted that the land in question is ancestral land and no right of any of the owners to enter into an agreement for any particular piece of land without making any partition by metes and bounds and alleg
Laxmiben D.O. Nathabha Mafatbhai Patel Vs. Dhawal Amrutbhai Patel
Mohd. Mehtab Khan and others Vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and others
R. K. Mohammed Ubaidullah and others Vs. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab and others
AI
Point of Law - Section 16 (c) of the Act of 1963 provides that specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person who fails to prove that he has performed or has always been ....
The delay in taking action after objections were raised, and the sale transaction to the new purchasers, did not warrant the grant of interim injunction.
(1) Merely because property is sold on lesser consideration then previous one, it does not ipso-facto make subsequent transaction illegal or malafide – Unregistered agreement to sell can be considere....
Bona fide purchasers are protected even in the absence of notice of prior unregistered agreements, and specific performance is unenforceable for such agreements.
An unregistered agreement to sell does not confer rights for specific performance; plaintiffs failed to show readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations.
An unregistered sale agreement can be considered for proving possession and specific performance, and an agreement to sell does not confer any right, title, or interest over the property, thus not re....
(1) Agreement to sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Decree for specific performance can be passed contingent upon grant of permission.(2) Prohibition on sale of agricultural lands – Embargo creat....
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.