The court emphasized that a plaintiff must prove both the validity of the agreement and readiness to perform contractual obligations; failure to exhibit necessary documents leads to dismissal of specific performance claims.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.01.2023 (decree signed on 04.02.2023) passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division,) III, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 112 of 2007 registered as T.P.E.S 112 of 2007 whereby the suit seeking specific performance of agreement dated 01.06.2007 has been dismissed.

2. The suit was filed for a decree of specific performance of contract arising out of the agreement dated 01.06.2007 directing the defendant to execute and register a regular sale deed transferring the suit property described in the schedule-A in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of balance consideration amount of Rs. 30,25,000/- and for delivery of possession.

3. Case of the plaintiff:-

(a) The suit property was originally allotted by M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Limited in the name of Dina Nath Chakravorty who died on 05.02.1982 and his wife Raj Laxmi Devi died on 20.12.1975, leaving behind the following legal heirs and successors:-

(a) Jatindra Nath Chakravorty (died on 21.03.2001)

(b) Rabindra Nath Chakravorty

(c) Birendra Nath Chakravorty

(d) Sachindra Nath Chakravorty (died on 30.01.2001)

(e) Ranendra Nath Chakravorty

(f) Ahindra Nath Chakravorty

(g) Mrs. Shanti Bagchi, wife of Late B.N. Bagchi (aged75 years)

(h) Mrs. Sovona Bagchi, W/o Late S.K. Bagchi (aged73 years)

(i) Mrs. Sipra Lahiri, W/o Mr. S.C. Lahiri (aged 60 years)

(b) A deed of relinquishment vide deed No. 866 dated 07.03.1998 was executed on behalf of Mrs. Shanti Bagchi, Mrs. Sovona Bagchi and Mrs. Sipra Lahiri in favour of their six brothers in light of which Holding No. 2 was mutated and recorded by M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Ltd. in the names of the six brothers as sub-lessee.

(c) Jatindra Nath Chakravorty and his wife died issueless; Sachindra Nath Chakravorty died on 30.01.2004 leaving behind his wife Mrs. Lita Chakravorty. The youngest son of Late Dina Nath Chakravorty namely, Ahindra Nath Chakravorty made his brother Birendra Nath Chakravorty the legal constituted attorney.

(d) Rabindra Nath Chakravorty, Birendra Nath Chakravorty and Mrs. Lita Chakravorty jointly executed a general power of attorney in favour of the sole defendant Suraj Kumar Bhadani for selling off their shares of the suit property which was registered on 04.10.2004 in favour of sole defendant in the registry office at Kolkata. Similarly, Ahindra Nath Chakravorty executed a general power of attorney in favour of sole defendant before the Solicitor & Notary Public Coodes 2, Princess Street, Truro Cornwall TRI.2EZ, England on 04^th October, 2004.

(e) It has been stated in the plaint that the original copies of the general powers of attorney executed by Rabindra Nath Chakravorty and others as well as one by Ahindra Nath Chakravorty in favour of the defendant were with the defendant and the photocopies of the same were given to the plaintiff.

(f) On the basis of the general powers of attorney, the defendant had approached the plaintiff for selling the suit property for a total consideration amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- and agreement for sale was executed on 01.06.2007 which was duly typed and signed by the parties in presence of the witness. The defendant in pursuance of the agreement had duly acknowledged receipt of Rs. 9,75,000/- by way of money receipt which was also executed in presence of the witnesses. The agreement provided that the final deed of sale is to be registered within 30 days of the date of the said agreement on receipt of the remaining balance amount of Rs. 30,25,000/-.

(g) It was stated in the plaint that despite the plaintiff approaching the defendant several times for execution and registration of the deed of sale on receipt of balance amount, the defendant on and from 07.07.2007 started avoiding to accept the balance amount and refused to register the deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff, although the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract arising out of the contract and had performed a considerable part