Back
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Bhom Singh – Appellant
Versus
Inder Raj S/o Hardev – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.
1. By way of this civil first appeal, the appellants-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) have challenged the judgment and decree dated 13.07.1989 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No. 41/1986 titled as Bhom Singh & Anr. Vs. Inder Raj and Anr. and Civil Suit No. 27/1988 titled as Manbhadra Vs. Bhom Singh & Ors.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs purchased a land of khasra No. 454 from defendant No. 1-Inder Raj in a sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- and also executed a written agreement to sell dated 04.06.1986. At the time of executing the written agreement to sell, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- were paid towards sale consideration. There was a condition in the agreement to sell that defendant No. 1-Inder Raj shall redeem the said land by repaying the bank loan. After that, registry was to be done in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1-Inder Raj took the balance amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs.10,000/- on 22.06.1986 for repaying the bank loan but he had not executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by passing a decree for land not claimed by the parties, necessitating remand for fresh adjudication.
The court ruled that defendants cannot sell land they do not own and upheld the validity of the agreement for the remaining land.
An agreement to sell must contain essential details to identify the property and be enforceable. The absence of such details renders the agreement unenforceable for specific performance.
Civil Law - Suit for specific performance of contract - Agreement to sale with regard to part of Khasra, showing name of Defendant in revenue papers, it cannot be said that said Defendant was not com....
The requirement to produce attesting witnesses to prove the validity of an alleged agreement to sell and the importance of timing in relation to the filing of a suit for specific performance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in granting specific performance and the determination of rights in a suit for specific performance.
A registered sale deed executed after full consideration cannot be challenged by a suit for specific performance without first seeking its cancellation.
Agreements lacking specific property details are unenforceable; specific performance is not guaranteed and must meet requirements of certainty and equity.
Specific performance of an agreement to sell is a non-discretionary relief and can be enforced if the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.
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
