Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Raj) 1388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.
Chitarmal Yadav and Others - Appellants
Versus
Deepti Singh and Others - Respondents
CFA No. 22 of 2018
Decided On : 23-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Bhandari, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Jitendra Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Dr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Verma, Adv.
Mr. Yogendra Singh, Adv.

The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish readiness to perform the contract, limiting their recovery to the return of the advance payment with interest.

Headnote:
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - Specific performance of contract - Dismissal of plaintiffs' suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land - Trial Court found that the agreement was not honored by the defendants due to a hike in land prices and fraudulent consent decree obtained by defendants - Plaintiffs claimed to have paid substantial amounts and sought registry of the land - Court held that the plaintiffs were bound by the conditions of the agreement and were entitled only to the return of the advance amount with interest. (Paras 1, 9, 33)

(B) Contract Law - Specific performance - The court emphasized that the plaintiffs must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, which was not established. (Paras 2, 33)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs entered into an agreement to sell land with the defendants, paid substantial amounts, but the defendants failed to execute the sale due to a fraudulent decree obtained in their favor. The plaintiffs sought specific performance and cancellation of the decree.

Findings of Court:
The trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, ruling that the agreement was not honored and the plaintiffs were entitled only to the return of the advance payment with interest.

Issues: The main issues included whether the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance of the contract and whether the defendants had ownership of the disputed land.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove their readiness to perform the contract and were bound by the conditions of the agreement, which limited their recovery to the advance payment.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.

1. The present civil first appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) under Section 96 C.P.C. 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2017 passed by Additional District Judge No. 19, Jaipur Metropolitan (HQ-Sanganer) (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Civil Suit No. 10/2013 titled as Chitarmal & Ors. Vs. Smt. Deepti Singh & Ors., whereby the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit for specific performance of contract, permanent injunction and cancellation of decree against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit mentioning therein that land bearing khasra No. 76 (new khasra Nos. 209, 210, 221/2783) total admeasuring 6.11 hectare (24 bigha 4 biswa) situated in Village Bhankarota, Tehsil-Jaipur was recorded in the name of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the revenue record and they were owner of it. The plaintiffs purchased the said land from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by way of agreement to sell dated 07.10.1998 and obtained the possession thereof, whereupon the plaintiffs raised construction and obtained electricity connection. Before executing the agreement to sell dated 07.10.1998, an agreement was also entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 12.03.1998 which was lateron cancelled and new agreement to sell dated 07.10.1998 was executed wherein it was agreed that the sale consideration would be Rs. 1,65,000/- per bigha. Resultantly under the earlier agreement were adjusted and the advance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- which were given the seller received an additional amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- also at the time of subsequent agreement dated 07.10.1998 and balance amount of sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of registry. It was also agreed in the agreement that the cases filed by defendant No. 3-Sohan Lal would be settled by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and on giving information in this regard by the defendants to the purchasers, registry would be done within 15 days thereafter, on remitting the balance amount of sale consideration. After execution of the said agreement dated 07.10.1998, the plaintiffs paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on 02.11.1998 and Rs. 20,000/- on 13.12.1998. In this way, a total amount of Rs. 10,20,000/- was said to be paid by the plaintiffs to the seller (defendant Nos. 1 and 2) and they were said to be ready and willing to pay the balance amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs. 29,73,000/- to get the registry done. Later on due to hike in land prices, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with malafide intention did not honor the agreement. So, the plaintiff sent the legal notice dated 18.09.2003. It was mentioned that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 fraudulently obtained consent decree on 26.12.2008 in revenue suits, according to which khatedari rights of the disputed land were given to Laxmi Narayan son of Bhakti Lal (defendant No. 4).

3. It was also mentioned in the plaint that Mehant Haridas had executed the purported sale deed dated 31.01.1968 in favour of Bhakti Lal but the said sale deed was not executed and actual physical possession of the land was not handed over to Bhakti Lal. Pursuant to the order dated 17.05.1989 passed in case No. 513/88, the disputed land was entered in revenue record in the name of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and they were in possession of the said land. Sale deed executed in favour of Bhakti Lal on 31.01.1968 was ineffective as against the plaintiffs. It was prayed that the consent decree dated 26.12.2008 passed in revenue suit which was obtained fraudulently on the basis of consent be also cancelled.

4. Defendant No. 3 filed the written statement and denied the contents of the plaint and mentioned that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had no concerned with the disputed land. The disputed land was in the name of Mehant Haridas, which was purchased by defendant No. 3 through registered sale deed dated 31.