Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Kangali Muduli, (dead) his LRs. Premalata Muduli – Appellant
Versus
Abhimanyu Behera – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
This Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Cuttack in Title Appeal No.74 of 1993, whereby the First Appellate Court allowed the cross-appeal filed by the plaintiff and decreed the suit for specific performance of contract. Earlier, this Court had disposed of this appeal by judgment dated 14.01.2016. However, the said judgment having been recalled in RVWPET No.40 of 2016, the appeal has been heard afresh and is being disposed of by this judgment.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status before the trial Court.
3. Plaintiff’s case is that he instituted the suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of an agreement dated 04.08.1986 (Ext.1) alleging that defendant no.1, who had acquired Ac.0.096 dec. of land under a registered deed of gift, agreed to sell Ac.0.040 dec. out of the same for a total consideration of Rs 20,000/-. Plaintiff pleaded that a sum of Rs 4,000/- was paid as advance consideration and the balance amount of Rs.16,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sal
A decree for specific performance requires clear and certain identification of the property; ambiguity in description renders it inexecutable.
An agreement to sell must contain essential details to identify the property and be enforceable. The absence of such details renders the agreement unenforceable for specific performance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in granting specific performance and the determination of rights in a suit for specific performance.
The court upheld the dismissal of a specific performance suit due to lack of precise property description and finding it time-barred.
(1) Agreement to sell – Specific performance will not be ordered if contract itself suffers from some defect which makes contract invalid or unenforceable – Discretion of court will not be there even....
Relief in civil suits must be strictly based on pleadings, and a plaintiff cannot obtain a decree for a different parcel of land than that specified in the suit.
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to complete contract obligations, failing which relief may be denied.
The court upheld the decree for specific performance, emphasizing the validity of the agreement despite the defendant's denial and failure to provide evidence.
To secure a decree for specific performance, plaintiffs must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness, supported by credible evidence, amidst a contract that specifies actionable terms.
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
