BIREN VAISHNAV, NISHA M. THAKORE
Bombay Garage Ahmedabad Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
J P ISCON Private Ltd – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Biren Vaishnav, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by Bombay Garage (Ahmedabad) Limited and Others who are the original defendants in Civil Suit No. 2515 of 2007. By a judgement and decree dated 25.11.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Court No. 4, City Civil Court, Bhadra, Ahmedabad, the trial court allowed the civil suit in favour of the respondents who are the original plaintiffs. By the judgement and decree under challenge, the appellants were directed to execute a registered sale deed in respect of land bearing Revenue Survey No. 266/17/2, Final Plot No. 332, Town Planning Scheme No. 14, admeasuring 7384 sq. mtrs. situated in the sim of village Dariapur- Kazipur, District Ahmedabad (‘suit property’).
2. Facts in brief are as under:
2.1 It was the case of the original plaintiffs – respondent no. 1 herein before the trial court that by a mutual agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the appellant had contracted to sell to the plaintiff – respondent property worth Rs.18,51,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.11,000/- was paid in cash as token earnest money at the time of the agreement.
2.2 According to the respondent – plaintiff, over a period of time, three meetings
Kamal Kumar vs. Premlata Joshi and others
Brij Mohan and Others vs. Sugra Begum and others
Kashi Nath (Dead) through Legal heirs vs. Jaganath
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ushadevi
Vurimi Pullarao S/o. Satyanarayana vs. Vemari Vyankata Radharani w/o. Dhankoteshwarrao and others
Kollipara Sriramulu vs. T. Aswatha Narayan
Gurinderpal Singh vs. Jagmittar Singh
Vimlesh Kumari Kulshrestha vs. Sambhajirao And Another
Sucha Singh Sodhi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs. Baldev Raj Walia and Another
Venkatraja and Others vs. Vidyane Doureradjaperumal (Dead) Through Legal Representatives
M/s. MRF Ltd. vs. Manohar Parikar
Venkatesh Construction Company v. Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Limited
V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K. (Dead) By Legal Representatives and Another
Sara Veeraswami v. Talluri Narayya
T.D. Gopalan v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments
The court affirmed that an oral agreement can be specifically enforced if supported by credible evidence and clear terms, despite procedural challenges.
Point of law: specific performance of oral Agreement of sale – Not proved - In a case of specific performance of contract, a greater degree of certainty is required and it demands a clear, definite a....
A party alleging an oral agreement for sale must prove its existence and payment through substantive evidence; failure to do so can lead to dismissal of the suit.
Oral agreement - in order to determine the binding nature of a contract between the parties, the mere acceptance of the sale price is not sufficient.
An oral agreement for the sale of immovable property requires proof of consideration and a concluded contract to be enforceable under the Indian Contract Act.
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a valid oral agreement for the sale of land, leading to the dismissal of their suit for specific performance.
Agreement to sell – Decree of specific performance can be granted on the basis of oral contract.
Unregistered oral agreements for sale of property are unenforceable and cannot be claimed for specific performance.
The court reaffirmed that the terms of a contract must be established by the written document, and oral evidence cannot contradict its terms, as per Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. Additional....
The subsequent suit for specific performance was not barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract.
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.