Back
2001 Supreme(Ori) 357
High Court Of Orissa
Pradipta Ray, A. S. Naidu
A.RAMA RAO - Appellant
Versus
RAGHUNATH PATNAIK - Respondent
A. H. O. 96 Of 1995
Decided On : 10/17/2001
D.CHATTERJI, D.MOHAPATRA, G.MUKHERJEE, P.K.MISHRA, R.K.MOHAPATRA, S.K.DEY, S.K.GHOSH, Y.MOHANTY
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and enforceability of an unregistered agreement for specific performance of a contract, as well as the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
Headnote:
Specific Performance of Contract - Agreement for Sale - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16(a), Section 19(b), Section 22(2) - The court confirmed the validity of the unregistered agreement for sale (Ext-1) and held that it can be enforced for specific performance. The court also found that the plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and that the time stipulated in the agreement had not expired, thus dismissing the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a house site. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had entered into another agreement for the same site with other parties, violating the terms of the original agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the agreement (Ext-1) was valid and could be enforced for specific performance. It also confirmed the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the agreement, the defendants' knowledge of the original agreement, and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the validity of the unregistered agreement for sale, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the time stipulated in the agreement not having expired.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
A. S. NAIDU, J.
( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal under Chapter-VII, Rule 2 (a) of the Orissa High Court Rules is at the instance of the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated August 7, 1995 passed by the hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in first Appeal No. 27 of 1988, confirming the judgment and decree dated december 19, 1987 passed by the then subordinate Judge, Chhatrapur in Title suit No. 25 of 1984.
( 2 ) THE suit out of which this letters Patent Appeal a rises was one for specific Performance of Contract, filed by the present respondent No. J as the sole plaintiff. Bereft of all the unnecessary details, the short facts of the case as would be apparent from the averments made in the plaint are as follows: on November 7, 1983, A. Gopal rao (Defendant No. 1) executed an unregistered plain paper agreement (Ext. 1) in respect of the suit scheduled house site agreeing to alienate the same in favour of plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 25,000)/ -. Out of the said amount a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid on the same day as token of part performance. Although it was stipulated in the said agreement that within six months of receipt of the balance consideration amount, defendant No. 1 would execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, he, violating the terms of the agreement, entered into another registered agreement for the same site with Ranka Panda (Defendant No. 2)and Padma Charan alias Padrnanava patra (Defendant No. 3) on March 14, 1984 (Ext. 1) fixing the consideration amount at Rs. 38. 000/- and received rs. 2005/-as advance. After coming to knoxv about the said fact, the plaintiff issued notice to all the defendants on march 29, 1984 (Ext-7 to 9) intimating about the subsistence of earlier agreement between him and Defendant no. 1 and forbidding them to enter into any sale transaction. It is alleged that the notices issued to Defendant No. 1 (Ext-7) returned unserved, whereas notice issued to Defendant No. 2 (Ext-8)and notice issued to Defendant No. 3 (Ext-9) returned unserved on their refusal. On April 2, 1984, the plaintiff having come to know that defendants were conspiring amongst themselves to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit site, instituted a suit praying for specific performance of contract and for other ancillary reliefs in the court of the then Subordinate Judge, chhatrapur which was registered as t. S. No. 25 of 1984.
( 3 ) AFTER receiving notice of the suit, defendant No. 1 appeared and filed a written statement. Defendants 2 and 3 also filed separate but joint written statement. In his written statement, defendant No. 1 denied execution of agreement (Ext-1) as well as receipt of rs. 5,000/- thereunder towards part performance of the sale consideration. His specific case was that taking advantage of his absence from chhatrapur two persons, namely, bauria Behera and Purna Chandra moharana trespassed and remained in illegal occupation of the suit house site. In order to initiate a proceeding to evict them, he had given two sheets of signed blank papers to his childhood friend and class-mate Ramanuja Das. It is asserted that the said papers were utilised stibsequently for the purpose of scribing the agreement. It was further pleaded by defendant No. 1 that prior to the execution of the agreement (Ext-A), the trespassers were evicted by a compromised judgment passed in T. S. No. 66 of 1984, and thereafter he sold the property to defendants 2 and 3.
( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 in their joint written statement stated that after purchasing the suit property they are in peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the suit house site. It is also asserted that they had never received any notice with regard to the earlier agreement (Ext-1) and were bona fide purchasers. The Defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the pleading, the trial Court framed as many as seven issues. To prove the case, the plaintiff examined two witnesses and exhibited 9 documents. Similar
