Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
BISWANATH RATH, J.
Suprava Chandra & Others - Appellants
Versus
Urmila Mohanty & Others - Respondents
First Appeal No. 249 of 1991, 268 of 1991
Decided On : 19-09-2019
CONTRACT - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - ORAL AGREEMENT - CONCLUDED CONTRACT - DISCRETION OF COURT - EQUITABLE RELIEF - BURDEN OF PROOF - READINESS AND WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM - TIME OF ESSENCE - BONA FIDE PURCHASER - NOTICE OF PRIOR ORAL AGREEMENT - SALE DEED - REGISTRATION - LIMITATION - RES JUDICATA - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a long-time tenant of the defendant's family, sought specific performance of an oral contract to purchase a plot of land from the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the parties had agreed on a sale price of Rs. 25,000 and that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendant denied the existence of any contract and claimed that he had sold the land to a third party, the defendant no.3. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff and decreed specific performance of the contract. The defendant appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court had correctly found that there was a concluded oral contract between the parties and that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance. The court noted that the plaintiff had established the existence of the contract through the testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence, including a letter from the defendant confirming the sale. The court also found that the plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the defendant had failed to provide any evidence to support his claim that the plaintiff was not a bona fide purchaser. The court further held that the defendant was not entitled to rely on the defense of limitation, as the suit had been filed within the three-year limitation period prescribed by the Specific Relief Act.
Issues: 1. Whether there was a concluded oral contract between the parties for the sale/purchase of the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract? 3. Whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract? 4. Whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund of earnest money etc. and, if so, on what grounds?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An oral contract for the sale of immovable property is valid and enforceable if it is supported by sufficient evidence, including the testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence. 2. A party seeking specific performance of a contract must show that he has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that he is still ready and willing to do so. 3. A bona fide purchaser for value without notice of a prior oral agreement is not bound by that agreement. 4. The defense of limitation is not available to a defendant in a suit for specific performance of a contract if the suit is filed within the three-year limitation period prescribed by the Specific Relief Act.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court's judgment decreeing specific performance of the contract.
JUDGMENT :
Biswanath Rath, J.
First Appeal bearing No.249 of 1991 has been filed by the defendant nos.1(a) to (c) the legal heirs of the original defendant no.1 in the Court below involving the judgment & decree dated 3.07.1991 involving T.S. No.7 of 1985 whereas First Appeal bearing No.268 of 1991 is at the instance of the defendant nos.2 & 3 respectively in the Court below. Respondents in both the cases as respondent nos.1(a) to 1(f) are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff in the Court below whereas the respondent nos.2 & 3 in the F.A. No.249 of 1991 are proforma respondents but however not only contested the suit by filing an independent written statement but also filed a counter claim seeking appropriate relief against the plaintiff. Similarly in F.A. No.268 of 1991 the respondent nos.2(a) 2(b) 2(c) are also the proforma respondents, amongst which the respondent no.2(c) involving F.A. No.268 of 1991 however has been deleted vide order no.10 dated 6.05.1993 in F.A. No.268 of 1991. The First Appeal involves a successful suit alongwith rejection of the counter claim.
2. Short background involving the plaintiff's case is that the original plaintiff Nisamani Mohanty was working as Tahasildar under the original defendant no.1 since 1940. After vesting of the Estate "Chandra Family" still retained the Khasmal Pattadhari lands and also had several rent suits, for which they retained the plaintiff to serve under them and allotted him a house which is a Pucca one situated over the plot no.2825 for his residential purpose but free of cost. Since 1956 the plaintiff with his family member were in occupation thereof till filing of the suit. Adjoining the plot no.2825 is situated plot no.2823 towards the east consisting of thatched rooms and open courtyard facing the main Purighat road and having access to plot no.2825. While the matter stood thus the plaintiff brought his nephew and other family members to reside with him as the nephew was to continue his study along with his sons. As a consequence the plaintiff sought for permission from the "Chandra Family" to take the said thatched rooms on rent. In the result, the then Karta of the family Ganesh Chandra Chandra rented out the said house to the plaintiff in the name of his nephew Raikishore Mohanty at the rate of Rs.3/- per month since 1957 consisting of three thatched rooms alongwith the open courtyard. Over the plot no.2823 two other thatched rooms were there adjoining to the south of the rooms let out to the plaintiff and in those two rooms defendant no.2 Padmavati and her husband who was then alive were residing on rent as tenant under the "Chandra Family". Subsequently Padmavati's husband died and defendant no.2 her only son also expired and she brought her sister's son, defendant no.3 and kept him as her adopted son. There was absolutely good relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant nos.2 & 3 and as a matter of fact the plaintiff was patronizing the defendant no.2 and up till filing of the suit had permitted her to take electric connection from his house and even has allowed her to take water pipe connection from his houses. In the Chandra Family there was an amicable partition in the year 1963 and in the said partition, plot no.2823 and 2824 with structures along with other property fell to the share of the defendant no.1 and plot no.2825 fell to the share of Bibhuti Bhusan Chandra and he also allowed the plaintiff to continue as before without payment as the plaintiff was still serving the Chandra Family and was looking after their litigation and also involved in the realization rent from Darpattadars. So far as the plot no.2823 is concerned, which is the subject matter of the dispute and is described in detail in schedule 'A' of the plaint. The said plot along with the thatched and open courtyard adjoining to plot no.2823 along with other property fell to the share of defendant no.1, who was a practising lawyer and was staying at Puri. After the said partition
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
