Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 1296
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Sandeep Sharma, JJ.
Rajesh Kumar Sood - Appellant
Versus
Parvej Nowrojee and others - Respondents
OSA No. 2 of 2007
Decided On : 04-08-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Devyani Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Mr. Janesh Gupta
The discretionary nature of granting specific performance, the importance of clean hands in seeking equitable relief, and the exercise of judicial discretion in deciding on specific performance.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell - Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Section 107 of the CPC - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - The judgment discusses the discretionary nature of granting specific performance, the importance of clean hands in seeking equitable relief, and the exercise of judicial discretion in deciding on specific performance. The court's analysis is based on the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, and the judgment emphasizes the need for fairness and equity in granting specific performance.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell property, but the court found the agreement to be doubtful and shrouded in suspicion. The plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the agreement, and the court concluded that the agreement was invalid and unenforceable. The plaintiff's conduct raised doubts about the genuineness of the agreement, and the court found that the plaintiff did not come to the court with clean hands.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the agreement and that the agreement was invalid and unenforceable. The court also concluded that the plaintiff did not come to the court with clean hands, and the conduct of the parties raised doubts about the genuineness of the agreement.
Issues: The issues included the validity and enforceability of the agreement, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the agreement, and the plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the discretionary nature of granting specific performance, the importance of clean hands in seeking equitable relief, and the exercise of judicial discretion in deciding on specific performance. The court emphasized the need for fairness and equity in granting specific performance.
Final Decision: The court upheld the impugned judgment and decree, dismissing the appeal with costs.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 19th December, 2006, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Suit No.32 of 2001, titled Rajesh Kumar Sood vs. Jamshed Nowrojee and others, whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff came to be dismissed, (for short, the impugned judgment).
2. Appellant/plaintiff invoked the original jurisdiction of this Court by the medium of civil suit, whereby the plaintiff sought for the following reliefs on the grounds taken in the plaint:
“a. By passing a decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 17.7.2000 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with respect to the properties comprised in Khata No.123, khatauni number 269, khasra numbers 463 to 472 and 474, total khasras 11, measuring 0-16-92 Hects. of Up Mohal Mcleodganj, mauza Dharamshala, District Kangra, as per jamabandi for the year 1992-93 as well as the property comprised in kahsra numbers 475, 476, 477 and 251 total khasras 4 measuring 0- 23-71 Hects. of Khata number 180 min, khatauni number 355 of Up Mohal Mcleodganj, District Kangra, H.P. as per jamabandi for the year 1992-93 with a further direction to the defendants to execute and get the necessary sale deed registered after purchasing the stamp papers for the purpose of getting the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff;
b. In case the defendants failed to do the needful, then the needful may be got done under the orders of this Hon’ble Court by an officer duly appointed to execute and get the sale deed registered and the defendants be also directed to perform all acts to facilitate and effectuate the transfer of the property by them in favour of the plaintiff including obtaining of necessary income tax clearance certificate as required under Chapter 20 and Section 230-A in Form No.34-A of the Income Tax Act;
c. In the alternative, it is submitted that if for any reason whatsoever, a decree for specific performance of the agreement is not passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, then a decree for a sum of rupees 40 lakhs or such further amount as this Hon’ble Court may determine may also be passed on account of refund of earnest money and damages alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of payment till its realization;”
3. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement and following issues came to be settled:
“1. Whether late Shri N.N. Nowrojee validly executed the agreement of sale dated 17.7.2000 on his own behalf and on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 4 as alleged? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.10 lakhs to late Shri N.N. Nowrojee as part payment of sale consideration as alleged? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement as alleged? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of the alleged agreement dated 17.7.2000? OPP
5. In case issue No. 4 is decided in the negative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the alternative relief for the recovery of Rs.40,00,000/- alongwith interest as claimed? OPP
6. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable as alleged? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit on account of his own acts, deeds and conduct as alleged? OPD
8. Relief.”
4. Parties led their evidence and after scanning the pleadings and the evidence, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove the execution of agreement to sell Ext.PW-4/A. Accordingly, issue No.1 came to be decided against the plaintiff/appellant and in favour of the defendants. Issues No.2, 4 and 5 were also decided against the plaintiff, while issues No.3, 6 and 7 were decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
5. The defendants have not questioned the impugned judgment on any ground. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has fi
