Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 846
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.
Banshi Lal – Appellant
Versus
Chhagani Devi and Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Civil First Appeal Nos. 64, 44 of 1985
Decided On : 20-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Party-in-Person
For the Respondents: Manish Shishodia and Anirudh Khatri
A plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance of a contract if he can prove that he has entered into a valid contract with the defendant, that he has performed his part of the contract, and that the defendant has refused to perform his part of the contract.
Headnote:
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT - ORAL AGREEMENT - PART PERFORMANCE - REFUND OF EARNEST MONEY - SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 21(5) OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - DISCRETIONARY RELIEF - EQUITY - BURDEN OF PROOF - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 165 - HANDWRITING EXPERT - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - SALE OF PROPERTY - VALUATION - CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS - INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT - RELIEF - DAMAGES - INTEREST - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to purchase the entire property belonging to the defendants. The plaintiff claimed that he had paid the entire consideration amount of Rs. 40,000/- and had also taken possession of a shop which was earlier rented to him. The defendants denied the agreement and claimed that the plaintiff had only paid Rs. 4,000/- as rent for the shop. The trial court found that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the defendants for the purchase of the property and that the defendants had received the entire consideration amount. However, the trial court refused to grant specific performance of the agreement and instead directed the defendants to refund the amount of Rs. 43,702/- along with interest @ 6% per annum.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiff had proved that he had entered into an agreement with the defendants for the purchase of the property and that the defendants had received the entire consideration amount. The High Court also held that the trial court erred in refusing to grant specific performance of the agreement. The High Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal and dismissed the defendants' appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the defendants for the purchase of the property? 2. Whether the defendants had received the entire consideration amount? 3. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant specific performance of the agreement?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the plaintiff had proved that he had entered into an agreement with the defendants for the purchase of the property on the basis of the following evidence: a. The plaintiff's testimony. b. The testimony of DW-4, who stated that the plaintiff had approached him to ask Chhagani Devi to sell the entire property to the plaintiff. c. The fact that the plaintiff had paid the entire consideration amount of Rs. 40,000/-. d. The fact that the plaintiff had taken possession of a shop which was earlier rented to him. 2. The High Court held that the defendants had received the entire consideration amount on the basis of the following evidence: a. The plaintiff's testimony. b. The testimony of DW-2, who stated that he had typed an Iqrarnama (agreement) and a receipt for the defendants. c. The fact that the defendants had encashed the cheque for Rs. 40,000/-. 3. The High Court held that the trial court erred in refusing to grant specific performance of the agreement on the basis of the following: a. The plaintiff had proved that he had entered into an agreement with the defendants for the purchase of the property. b. The plaintiff had proved that the defendants had received the entire consideration amount. c. The defendants had not raised any valid defense to the plaintiff's claim for specific performance.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal and dismissed the defendants' appeal. The High Court directed the defendants to execute a sale deed in favor of the plaintiff and to hand over the remaining possession of the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was directed to pay the stamp duty of the property as per the present DLC rates for the purpose of registration of the sale deed.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
1. The plaintiff/appellant, who appears in person has preferred S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 64/1985 assailing the judgment and decree dated 08.04.1985 passed by learned District Judge, Balotra, Camp Barmer, whereby his suit for specific performance of contract, and possession was refused and the amount of Rs. 43,702/- was directed to be paid to the appellant/plaintiff.
2. The suit was preferred by the appellant for specific performance and possession of house, and in the alternative, to grant a sum of Rs. 43,702/- alongwith interest, expenses and compensation.
3. Brief facts, stated in the plaint, are that the plaintiff/appellant has set up a case as tenant that he entered into an oral agreement with defendant-Chhagani Devi widow of Late Rana Mal and her son Loonkaran for purchase of the entire property belonging to Late Rana Mal, as detailed out in the plaint, on 25.05.1981. The said sale agreement was entered with the sanction of the other defendants and for a total consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. It was also agreed that expenses required for the registration of sale of the property shall be borne by the plaintiff/appellant.
The appellant further reiterated what he has submitted in his plaint and stated before the court that he alongwith defendant No. 2 had gone to Jodhpur and deposited a sum of Rs. 3702/- by way of challan No. 330 in favour of defendant No. 2 for purchase of stamps for preparing the sale deed. Four stamp papers of Rs. 3000/-, Rs. 500/-, Rs. 200/- and Rs. 2/- respectively were issued by the Treasury and a sale deed was required to be executed on the said stamp papers.
On 22.06.1981, he handed over a cheque of Rs. 40,000/- drawn on Bank of Rajasthan Limited, Barmer Branch to defendant No. 1 Chhagani Devi who encashed the said cheque, and thereafter, handed over a receipt Exhibit-3 and iqrarnama (agreement) Exhibit-2, wherein she put her signatures and also mentioned that she had received the amount.
The execution of the sale deed was deferred on account of there being a theft in the family of the defendants, and thereafter, death of a close relative.
He has stated that on 10.03.1982, he again approached the defendants for getting the agreement executed as per the sale draft, which was in possession of the respondents/defendants, but the same was not executed, and therefore, he filed the suit praying for issuing directions for getting the agreement executed. It was also alternatively prayed that if for any reasons, execution is not possible, the amount already paid be recovered from the respondents/defendants alongwith interest @ 15% per annum.
4. The defendant No. 1-Chhagani Devi filed a separate written statement, while defendants No. 2 and 3 Loonkaran and Sua Devi respectively filed a joint written statement. Against the other defendants, proceedings were undertaken ex parte.
In the written statement filed by Chhagani Devi, she denied of having received a cheque or having encashed any cheque of Rs. 40,000/-, and of having entered into any kind of agreement with the plaintiff and gives a reason that she having been widowed on 04.11.1980 was required as per her customs to remain in the house for one year, and as her husband died on 04.11.1980, the alleged date mentioned by the plaintiff was only seven months thereafter and she therefore could not have gone out to encash the cheque and the averment was false and concocted.
She also denied of having any talking terms with the plaintiff against whom a case was already pending for eviction of one of the shops let out to him by her husband. However, she stated that the plaintiff had approached her offering her a sum of Rs. 4,000/-, taking advantage of the fact that she was having stringent relations with her son Loonkaran, who was looking after the case relating to eviction and the plaintiff coaxed her to accept a cheque of Rs. 4,000/- for the pending rent, although the amount due against him was Rs. 5,000/-.
She stated that the cheque wa
