IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ARAVIND KUMAR, ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, JJ.
Hanspur Road Co.Op. Housing Society Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Vithal Mandir Trust & 14 others - Respondents
R/First Appeal No. 3517 of 2000, Civil Application (For Orders) No. 1 of 2015, 1 of 2016, 1 of 2022, 2 of 2007, 2 of 2014, 3 of 2007, 3 of 2014, Civil Application (For Joining Party) No. 3 of 2018, Civil Application (For Additional Evidence) No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of 2022
Decided on : 12-01-2023
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 107 – Rule 27 of Order 41 – Bombay Public Trusts Act – Section 36, 80, 51 – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act – Section 20 – Gujarat Public Trusts Act, 1951 – Section 36A, 50, 51 – Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act – Section 63 –Specific Relief Act – Sections 10, 11, 14, 16 – Perpetual Injunction – First appeal is directed against judgment and decree passed in Special Civil where under suit filed for specific performance of Agreement of Sale – Held, Court would take into consideration while considering plea for grant of specific performance would be readiness and willingness where balance sheet of plaintiff does not reflect of having sufficient fund to discharge plaintiff’s part of contract discretionary relief would not be granted as held Apex Court instant case plaintiff’s balance sheet reflects it does not possess any fund and there is negative profit and as such question of granting specific performance would not arise – Trial Court in dismissing suit.
JUDGMENT :
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.167 of 1984 dated 23.10.2000 whereunder suit filed for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 27.12.1974 came to be dismissed.
BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
2. The parties are referred to as per their rank in the trial court.
3. Plaintiff claiming to be a cooperative society registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Housing Societies Act sought for a decree of specific performance being passed in its favour contending inter alia that property bearing Survey Nos.37 and 39 situated at village Thaltej, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad, admeasuring 2-Acres and 29-Gunthas and 4-Acres and 38- Gunthas respectively belonged to first defendant which is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act (for short, ‘BPT Act’) and defendant Nos.2 to 8 are its trustees. It was further contended that defendants had executed an Agreement for Sale dated 18.08.1966 in favour of Pramukhlal Jivanlal Parikh and Ambalal Ishvarlal Prajapati. Said Pramukhlal Jivanlal Parikh as well as the Trust executed an Agreement of Sale dated 21.09.1970 in favour of Gangaram Bhaskarrao Pavde. Said Gangaram Bhaskarrao Pavde assigned his rights in favour of a partnership firm M/s.Jalpa Traders through its partner Mukundbhai Chimanlal Shah. One of the trustees Mr.Kunjbiharilal Madhavlal Bhagwat is said to have executed an Agreement to Sell dated 08.05.1972 in favour of the partnership firm Jalpa Traders through its partner Mukundbhai Chimanlal Shah and he had also previously executed an Agreement dated 03.04.1972. As such, Jalpa Traders claimed all rights under the Agreement to Sell acquired by it. The said rights of Agreement of Sale which was acquired by Jalpa Traders came to be assigned by the said firm through its partners in favour of M/s.Chhaganlal and Company vide Agreement to Sell dated 23.11.1973, who entered into an Agreement of Sale in favour of the plaintiff society to sell the land under the Agreement of Sale dated 27.12.1974, under which agreement plaintiff society is said to have paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- to M/s.Chhaganlal and Company. Plaintiff also claimed that a sum of Rs.25,000/- is paid on 20.05.1975 and Rs.5,000/- on 15.12.1978 and in all Rs.45,000/- was paid to said Chhaganlal & Company. Plaintiff claimed that all trustees of the defendant trust have agreed to continue the Agreement of Sale dated 27.12.1974 executed by M/s.Chhaganlal and Company and at the first instance, the agreed price was Rs.3.25 per sq.meter and it was agreed to be revised upwards by Rs.2 per sq.meter totaling to Rs.5.25 per sq.meter. It is also contended that while assigning all rights over the said land in favour of the plaintiff society by the defendants, all the defendants have executed their writings over the Agreement to Sell dated 27.12.1974 and on 18.04.1976 vacant and peaceful possession of the land (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’) agreed to be sold in favour of plaintiff society was handed over to the plaintiff.
4. It is further contended by the plaintiff that defendant trust had received a sum of Rs.20,001/- towards consideration by Cheque dated 21.10.1982 which has been duly accepted that it was in lieu of Cheque dated 11.08.1982 owing to certain mistake in the said cheque. It is also contended that further sum of Rs.5,500/- was paid towards sale consideration on 30.12.1982 and a sum of Rs.5,000/- paid on 04.06.1983 by cheque drawn on Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank. Thus, plaintiff society claimed that in all it had paid Rs.30,501/- to the defendant trust.
5. Plaintiff also claimed that one Shri Babaji Bapuji had been as appointed on 01.10.1976 as Watchman for the suit schedule property after obtaining possession and a sum of Rs.4,800/- was paid to him by Chhaganlal and Company and same had been refu
State of Rajasthan versus T.N. Sahani
Atma Ram v. Charanjit Singh AIR 2020 SC 3413
A.A. Gopalkrishna v. Kochin Devasthanam
Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Daulat and Anr.
Biraji Alias Brijraji and another vs. Surya Pratap and others (2020) 10 SCC 729
Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and others vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and others
Biraji Alias Brijraji and another vs. Surya Pratap and others reported in (2020) 10 SCC 729
Baluram vs. P. Chellathangam and Others
Biraji Alias Brijraji and another vs. Surya Pratap and others
Badami Devi and Anr. Ambuja Raghavan
C.S. Venkatesh vs. A.S.C. Murthy
Govindbhai Gordhanbhai Patel and Ors. vs. Gulam Abbas Mulla Allibhai & Ors.
Hamumiya Bachumita vs. Mehdihusen Gulamhusen
Huseinmiya Safimiya v. Habibsha Hasamsha Fakir reported in 1985 (2) GLR 928
J.P. Srivastava & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. And Ors.
Jaipur Development Authority vs. Kailashwati Devi (Smt.)
Jayramdas and Sons vs. Mirza Rafatullah Baig and others
Jugraj Singh and Anr. Jaswant Singh & Ors.
K.Kupuraj vs M. Ganeshan - AIR 2021 SC 4652
K. Venkataramian v. Seetharama Reddy
Kamal Kumar vs. Premlata Joshi and Others
Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal (2005) 6 SCC 733
LIC of India versus Digvijaysingh Gangasingh
M. Meenakshi and Others vs. Metadin Agarwal (Dead) By LRs and Others (2006) 7 SCC 470
Man Kaur (Dead) by Lrs. vs. Hartar Singh Sangha
Mehar Chand and Others versus Lachhmi and Ors.
Marwari Kumhar and Ors. Versus Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri and Anr.
Minakshi and other vs. Metadin Agarwal reported in (2006) 7 SCC 470
M. Meenakshi and Others vs. Metadin Agarwal (Dead) By LRs and Others
Man Kaur (Dead) by Lrs. vs. Hartar Singh Sangha
M. Meenakshi & Ors. vs. Metadin Agarwal (D) by Lrs. & Ors.
Mehboob-Ur-Rehman (Dead) through LRs vs. Ahsanul Ghani
M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and Another vs. Jahan Khan (2007) 10 SCC 88
M/s. Lim & Co. vs. K.M. Sayeed
Mrs. Chandnee Vidya Vati Madden v. Dr. C.L. Katilal and Others AIR 1964 SC 978
North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das (Dead) by Lrs.
Narayamma and others vs. Govindappa and others – (2019) 19 SCC 42
Nirmal Anand Vs. Advent Corporation Private Limited reported in (2002) 8 SCC 146
Najmudin I. Bharmal and Ors. v. Charotar Gramoddhar Sahakari
Nirmala Anand versus Advent Corporation (P) Ltd.
Narayanamma and Another vs. Govindappa and Others
North Eastern Railway Administration
Parsotim Thakur versus Lal Mohar Thakur
Man Kaur (Dead) by Lrs. vs. Hartar Singh Sangha reported in (2010) 10 SCC 512 (paragraph 17)
Prabodhkumar Maganbhai Patel vs. Modasa Kadva Patidar Chhatralaya and Others
Prabodhkumar v. Modasa Kadva Patidar
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs. The Motor & General Traders
Prabodhkumari Maganbhai Patel vs. Modasa Kadva Patidar – 2010 (4) GLR 3562
Rozan Mian vs. Tahera Begum and others
Radhakrishna Dharmartha Private Trust and others vs. Parmanand Soni (Dead) By Lrs.
R.C. Chandiok and Anr. vs. Chuni Lal Sabharwal and Ors.
Sumtibai and others vs. Paras Finance Co. and others (2007) 10 SCC 82
Sandhya Rani vs Sudha Rani reported in AIR 1978 SC 537
Syed Dastgir vs T.R. Gopalkrishna Seatty (1999) 6 SCC 337
Sultan Mahomed Rowther vs. Muhammad Esur Rowther and Ors.
Shankar Das Rup Lal vs. Governor – General in Council
Shah Jitendra Nanalal Ahmedabad vs. Patel Lallubhai Ishverbhai Ahmedabad and Ors.
Syed Dastagir vs T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty
Sridevgamma v. K. Shivaraj and Ors.
S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By Lrs. vs. Jagannath (Dead) by Lrs. and others
Shenbagam and others vs. K.K.Rathinavel
S.P. Chengalvaraya naidu vs. Jagannath
Shah Jitendra Nanalal Ahmedabad vs. Patel Lallubhai Ishverbhai Ahmedabad and Ors. AIR 1984 Guj. 145
State of Rajasthan versus T.N. Sahani
Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Anr.
U.N. Krishnamurthy (since deceased) Thr. Lrs. Versus A.M. Krishnamurthy
Union of India vs. K.V.Lakshman and others
Variety Emporium vs. V.R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina
gpt-4
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the necessity of permission under the Gujarat Public Trust Act, the conduct of the parties in fulfilling their obligations under the agreement....
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove the agreement, payment of consideration, and possession of the property.
Specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property can be granted even if the final layout has not been sanctioned, provided the plaintiff has proven the existence of the agreement....
The court emphasized that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove readiness and willingness, which was lacking in the context of an unregistered agreement, leading to the dismissal of the....
(1) Agreement to sell – Specific performance will not be ordered if contract itself suffers from some defect which makes contract invalid or unenforceable – Discretion of court will not be there even....
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
(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....
Point of law ;Agreement of Sale - Even if the sale transaction is a lawful transaction, the Court has to take note of the readiness and willingness of the parties to complete the sale transaction.
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.