Back
SUDESH BANSAL
Umar Khan (Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Sumer Khan (Now deceased) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. By way of instant first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a challenge has been made to judgment and decree dated 25.03.1983 passed in Civil Suit No.9/1982 titled Sumer Khan Vs Hakim Singh by the Court of Additional District Judge, Deeg, Bharatpur, whereby and whereunder a civil suit for specific performance filed by plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 on the basis of an agreement to sale dated 20.08.1981 has been decreed in their favour and against defendant No.1/respondent No.4-Hakim Singh and simultaneously, by the same judgment, two registered sale deeds dated 29.04.1982, executed by defendant No.1-Hakim Singh in favour of appellants/defendants No.2 & 3 namely Umar khan and Amar Singh, have been declared as null and void qua plaintiffs.
2.1 The first appeal has been preferred by defendants No.2 & 3, original purchasers of agricultural lands in question bearing Khasra No.771 (3 bigha 7 biswa) and Khasra No.773 (1 bigha 3 biswa) total measuring 4 bigha 10 biswa, situated at Village Pathroli, Tehsil Kama, District Bharatpur from recorded Khatedar of land in question namely Hakim Singh, who was defendant No.1 before the trial Court and respondent
(1) At the stage of first appeal, being in continuation of suit, subsequent events occurred during course of first appeal may also be not left out of consideration. (2) Agreement to Sell – Presumptio....
The court ruled that a suit for specific performance was not barred by Order 2, Rule 2 CPC as the appellants were permitted to withdraw a prior suit and file a new one.
An unregistered agreement to sell does not confer rights for specific performance; plaintiffs failed to show readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations.
The court held that specific performance of an agreement for sale is unenforceable without consent from co-parceners and proof of legal necessity, emphasizing the court's discretion in granting such ....
The grant of specific performance is discretionary, considering undue hardship to subsequent bona fide purchasers, outweighing the plaintiff's claim based on a disputed agreement.
Court emphasized that once agreements are executed and earnest money paid, specific performance can be enforced unless clear evidence of coercion or duress is presented.
The appellate court confirmed the validity of a registered sale agreement and dismissed the second appeal, affirming the lower court's ruling on specific performance despite claims of tenancy.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
