Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 460
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURTHIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.
Sri Pawan Kumar Sethi, S/o- Late Mohanlal Sethi - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sumi Medhi @Chandralika Medhi Das - Respondent
RFA 13 of 2020
Decided On : 19-02-2026
For the Appellant :Mr. J.C. Gaur, Advocate
Consent from all co-owners is essential for specific performance of a contract regarding jointly owned property; absence of such consent leads to denial of specific performance and proper adjustment of refund owed.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 and Order 41, Rule 1 - Specific Performance of Contract - Appeal against rejection of request for specific performance and allowing refund of advance payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- - Primary issue whether other co-owners consented to the sale - Court found insufficient proof of consent from co-owners; therefore, specific performance denied. Appellant entitled to refund modified to Rs. 20,20,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum. (Paras 22, 23, 28, 29)
(B) Appeal - Parameters for consideration - Appellate court should evaluate the merits of lower court’s findings and errors in assessing evidence before finalizing remedies. (Paras 21, 28)
Facts of the case:
Appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a contract to purchase land, paying significant amounts as advance. The trial court ruled in favor of the appellant partially regarding the refund but denied specific performance, concluding no proof of authorization from all co-owners of the property. Respondents contested the suit, and the lower court's decision was challenged by the appellant.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's findings were partially upheld; however, refund modified to reflect total amounts paid, plus adjusted interest rate, demonstrating the importance of acknowledging the total agreed payment and relevant consent in contractual obligations.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in denying specific performance based on the lack of consent from co-owners and calculating the refund amount correctly.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court emphasized the necessity of consent from all parties to a contract involving jointly owned property, and the trial court's failure to accurately assess total payments due influenced the outcome, leading to a revised decision regarding refunds and interest rates.
Result: Appeal partially allowed; refund amount modified to Rs. 20,20,000/- with interest @ 12%.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over contract execution and payment. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. trial court's analysis and findings. (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. appellant's arguments on trial court's errors. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. court's determination of contract enforcement. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. amount to be refunded and considerations. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. final ruling and decree. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.
[1] Heard Mr. J. C. Gaur, the learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal was heard ex parte against the respondents since, in spite of due service of summons. None appeared on behalf of the respondents when the matter was called on for hearing.
[2] This appeal, under Section 96 , read with Order 41, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the appellant, Sri Pawan Kumar Sethi, impugning the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2019, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup(Metro), Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 311/2011, whereby the prayer of the present appellant, as plaintiff, for specific performance of contract in respect of the suit land was rejected, and the alternative prayer for realization of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only), which was the advance consideration amount paid by the appellant to the respondent No. 1 was allowed.
[3] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that present appellant had filed a suit for specific performance of contract against respondents before the Court of learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup(Metro), at Guwahati, which was registered as Title Suit No. 311/2011. In the plaint filed by the present appellant before the trial court in the aforesaid suit, it was contended by him that the present respondent No.1 approached him and introduced himself as the co-owner with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 of a plot of land measuring 2 kathas, 16 lechas, i.e. 7.47 Are, together with a godown and other structures standing thereon, situated in Sahar, Guwahati part 2, falling under Guwahati Mauza. It was contended in the plaint that the respondent No. 1 with the consent of other co- owners offered to sell 1 katha, 8 lechas of land, out of the aforesaid land, to the appellant and he agreed to purchase the same. It was further contended that thereafter they executed an agreement to sell on 11.07.2011. It was further contended that at the time of execution of the aforesaid agreement dated 11.07.2011 the appellant had paid an amount of Rs. 12,00,000/-(Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) as advance to the respondent No. 1, out of which Rs. 8,00,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs only) was in cash, which was acknowledged by the respondent No. 1 by issuing a money receipt and the remaining amount was paid by account payee cheque.
[4] It was further contended in the plaint that later on, on 18.07.2011, the present appellant had paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and thereafter on 22.07.2011 paid another amount of Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Thousand only) to the defendant and as such the appellant had already paid an amount of Rs. 20,20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs Twenty Thousand only) out of the agreed sale consideration amount of Rs. 21,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty-One Lakh only).
[5] It was further contended that the defendant No.1 (respondent No. 1) on behalf of all the respondents had handed over the possession of a godown measuring approximately 550 square feet to the appellant on 11.07.2011 and subsequently the remaining portion of the scheduled property was also handed over to the present appellant on 01.08.2011.
[6] It was also contended in the plaint that as per the agreement dated 11.07.2011.It was agreed between the parties that registered sale deed will be executed by the defendants(respondents)by obtaining necessary permission from the Deputy Commissioner and GMDA.
[7] It was further contended in the plaint that on 11.08.2011, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 came to the suit property and forcibly ous
