Back
2013 Supreme(Raj) 357
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Jaipur Bench
Karan Singh Vs. Ram Lal (Sharma, J.)
HON'BLE ALOK SHARMA, J.
Karan Singh
Versus
Ram Lal
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 102 of 1993, decided on 06.12.2013
Anita Agarwal, for Appellant;
R.P. Singh, for Respondent
Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963, Sec. 16(c), 20; C.P.C., Sec. 96; Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 101 to 103 — First appeal — Suit for specific performance — Agreement to sell executed on 18.7.1989 — Sale deed was to be executed within six months of the agreement that lapsed on 18.1.1990 — First time issued notice after a delay of over 12 months — Trial Court passed decree without framing of issue with regard to readness and willingness of plaintiff to perform his part of contract — Held — The procedure adopted by trial court is shockingly deviant of all known procedures of C.P.C. and Secs. 101 to 104 of the Evidence Act — Plaintiff did not prove any serious overt act on his part to establish the crucial aspect of willingness and readiness — Trial court could not exercise its discretion u/S. 20 of the Act — Impugned judgment and decree set aside. (Paras 21 to 28)
Appeal allowed.
fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963] /kkjk 16¼x½] 20( fl-iz-la-] /kkjk 96( lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872] /kkjk 101 ls 104 & izFke vihy & fofufnZ"V vuqikyukFkZ okn & 18-7-1989 dks foØ; djkj fu"ikfnr fd;k & djkj ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj foØ; foys[k fu"ikfnr djuk Fkk tks 18-1-1990 dks lekIr gks x;k & 12 ekg ls Hkh vf/kd le; ds foyEc ds ckn igyh ckj uksfVl tkjh fd;k & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us lafonk ds vius fgLls dh vuqikyuk djus gsrq oknh dh rRijrk vkSj bPNk ds lEcU/k esa fook|d fojfpr fd;s fcuk okn fMØh fd;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk viuk;h xbZ izfØ;k fl-iz-la- vkSj lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 101 ls 104 dh lkjh lqifjfpr izfØ;kvksa dk vfrØe.k gS & oknh us bPNk o rRijrk ds izekf.kd igyw dks LFkkfir djus gsrq vius vksj ls fdlh xaHkhj izR;{k d`R; dks lkfcr ugha fd;k & fopkj.k U;k;ky; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 20 ds rgr vius foosdkf/kdkj dk iz;ksx ugha dj ldrk Fkk & vk{ksfir fu.kZ; o fMØh vikLr dhA ¼in la[;k 21 ls 28½
vihy Lohdkj dhA
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The suit was for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land, with the agreement allegedly executed on 18.7.1989, and the sale was to be completed within six months. The plaintiff claimed readiness and willingness to perform his obligations, including payment of the remaining amount and execution of the sale deed.
-
The trial court passed a decree in favor of the plaintiff without properly framing issues related to the core requirements for specific performance, specifically the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract at all relevant times (!) (!) .
-
The agreement to sell was not properly exhibited by the plaintiff, and upon examination, the signatures on the alleged agreement appeared to be forged, differing from the signatures on other documents of the defendant (!) (!) .
-
The procedure adopted by the trial court was fundamentally flawed, as it wrongly placed the burden of proof on the defendant to disprove the existence of the agreement and the plaintiff’s willingness, contrary to established legal principles (!) (!) .
-
The plaintiff delayed issuing the notice for performance by over 12 months after the agreement's stipulated time frame, which cast doubt on his continued readiness and willingness (!) .
-
The evidence did not establish that the plaintiff had the financial capacity to fulfill the remaining payment under the agreement, nor did it demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness from the date of the agreement until the filing of the suit (!) (!) .
-
The agreement's terms, including the stipulation that the sale deed be executed within six months, were crucial, and the delay beyond this period was significant. The delay and other suspicious circumstances, such as prior criminal cases and disputes, further undermined the plaintiff’s case (!) (!) (!) .
-
The signatures of the defendant on the alleged agreement appeared to be forged, which significantly impacted the validity of the agreement itself (!) .
-
The court emphasized that the exercise of discretion under the specific performance statute must consider equitable principles, including the conduct of the parties, and that mere delay, lack of proof of readiness, or the existence of suspicious circumstances can justify refusal of specific performance (!) (!) .
-
The judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside due to procedural irregularities, improper framing of issues, and the fundamental flaw in assessing the evidence and burden of proof. The suit was ultimately dismissed (!) (!) .
-
The case highlights that specific performance is an equitable remedy, and courts must exercise discretion carefully, ensuring all statutory conditions, including proof of readiness and willingness, are satisfied before granting such relief (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this case.
2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter `the plaintiff') Ram Lal filed a suit for specific performance on 14.2.1991 based on an agreement to sell stated to have been executed on 18.7.1989 in respect of agricultural lands ad-measuring 4 bigha 3 biswa (1 bigha 12 biswa in khasra No. 340; 1 bigha 4 biswa in Khasra No. 377 and 1 bigha 7 biswa in khasra No. 379) situate at Ataripur Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur (hereinafter `the suit land') of which the defendant appellant (hereinafter `the defendant') was the recorded khatedar. It was stated that the defendant had agreed to sell the suit land for a sum of Rs. 56,000/- of which Rs. 30,000/- was alleged to have been paid to the defendant on the same day and the remaining Rs. 26,000/- was payable before the Registrar at the time of execution of the sale deed to be executed within six months. The plaintiff stated that the agreement to sell dated 18.7.1989 had been scribed by one Kishan Jatav and transaction witnessed by one Supariya and another Sonya Mali. The plaintiff averred that he was continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract yet the defendant refused to abide by his obligations under the agreement to sell dated 18.7.1989. Oral reminders by the plaintiff being of no avail a registered notice was sent on 26.12.1990 requiring the defendant to execute a sale-deed in terms of the agreement to sell dated 18.7.1989. The registered notice was received by the defendant on 27.12.1990 who yet continued to be in breach. Consequently the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18.7.1989 was filed praying for a decree that the sale deed be executed in favour of the plaintiff, the possession of the suit land be handed over to him and that the defendant be directed not to thereafter interfere therewith.
3. On service of notice of the suit, the defendant filed a reply of denial. The execution of agreement to sell dated 18.7.1989 was specifically denied and the purported agreement was alleged to be forged. The defendant's case in-stead was that he had borrowed Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff in July 1989 on the guarantee of Sonya Mali and in respect of the said transaction the plaintiff Ram Lal had obtained his signatures on a Bahi and also on a blank stamp paper of Rs. 5/-. It was stated that thereafter when a sum of Rs. 9062/- was available with the defendant on 5.7.1990, he sought to partly discharge his liability towards the loan repayable to the plaintiff Ram Lal. But Sonya Mali had taken the said amount with an assurance to deliver the same to Ram Lal. Villagers Ajmat, Brijendra, Papiya etc. were witnesses to Sonya Mali being paid Rs. 9062/- by the defendant for and on behalf of the plaintiff. It was submitted that Sonya Mali however turned dishonest and in breach of faith, misappropriated the said amount to himself. Subsequently, the plaintiff and Sonya Mali had accosted the plaintiff in his house on or about 8.10.1990 and demanded the return of the whole of Rs. 10,000/- loan with interest from the defendant. The defendant was then forcibly taken to the plaintiff Ram Lal's house where he was tied up and beaten. According to the plaintiff subsequently a Panchayat was convened at the request of the defendant to resolve the dispute. Sonya Mali and the plaintiff Ram Lal absented themselves and were found guilty of wrong doing in the meeting of the Panchayat. The plaintiff also stated that two FIRs were lodged by him with regard to the incidents. A complaint was also lodged on 26.11.1990 for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC against the plaintiff and others. It was stated that aside of being forged, t
