Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Amit Kukreja - Appellant
Versus
Shweta Sachdeva - Respondent
RSA-2552-2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 14-03-2024
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 10 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VIII Rules 3, 4, and 5 – Suit for specific performance and recovery of money – Plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 26.10.2010, but the defendant-appellant claimed cancellation due to alleged breaches – The execution of the agreement was admitted, but the defendant-appellant failed to prove valid cancellation or forfeiture of the amount received – The courts below decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,34,40,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from 30.06.2011 – The defendant-appellant was held liable to pay the amount but interest was limited to cheque payments only, excluding cash transactions. (Paras 8, 12, 19, 20)
(B) Pleadings – Specific denial – The court emphasized that evasive denials in pleadings are deemed admissions, and the defendant-appellant's failure to specifically deny payments made by the plaintiff-respondent led to the conclusion that the amounts were accepted. (Paras 15, 18)
JUDGMENT :
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Trial Court and judgment and decree dated 24.08.2022 passed by the First Appellate Court.
2. The plaintiff-respondent in the present case had put in appearance on 29.11.2022, thus, waiving service.
3. With the consent of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the matter is being taken up for final hearing. Photocopies of the records of the Courts below were called for vide order dated 02.05.2023.
4. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. Relief of specific performance was sought qua the agreement to sell dated 26.10.2010. Mandatory injunction was sought directing the defendant-appellant to furnish the original documents of title pertaining to the suit property. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was sought restraining the defendant-appellant from alienating the suit property in any manner to any other person except the plaintiff-respondent. Alternative relief of recovery of Rs.1,34,40,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization was also sought. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff-respondent is a proprietor-business woman of M/s Ozone Steam Sauna and Pools, Gurugram which she handles along with her husband, namely, Sh. Rakesh Sachdeva. In all their dealings with the defendant-appellant, the plaintiff-respondent has been helped by her husband, who had been present with her throughout. It was averred that in the year 2010 the plaintiff-respondent was introduced to the defendant-appellant through the proforma defendants (given up on 05.09.2014). The defendant-appellant projected that he was the owner in possession and having absolute rights of the land and residential construction being No.260, Deer Wood, Block-S, Nirvana Country, South City-II Phase-II, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’). The defendant-appellant expressed his desire to sell the suit property to the plaintiff-respondent. Accordingly, an agreement to sell was entered into by the defendant- appellant in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on 26.10.2010. The total sale consideration was settled at Rs.2,60,00,000/-. The plaintiff-respondent paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as earnest money by way of two cheques and the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,45,00,000/- was to be paid in the following manner :
b) Rs.15,00,000/- on or before 28.03.2011
c) Rs.1,85,00,000/- at the time of signing of the final documents for sale.
It was further averred that the schedule of payment could not be adhered to strictly and the defendant-appellant accepted payments not strictly as per the schedule without any protest and, therefore, the schedule was waived by the defendant-appellant. It was further averred that since the plaintiff-respondent was taking some time to arrange for the funds, therefore, though the contract date was 11.04.2011 for registration of the sale deed, however, it was agreed by the defendant-appellant that he would give some more time to the plaintiff-respondent in case she was unable to arrange the funds by 11.04.2011. However, vide clause 4 of the agreement to sell, the defendant-appellant agreed to keep the agreement to sell in effect till such time the plaintiff-respondent was able to arrange the funds provided that she would pay interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payment. It was further averred that the plaintiff-respondent paid an amount of Rs.1,34,40,000/- on different dates as mentioned in para No.7 of the plaint. It was further averred that by 11.04.2011 the plaintiff-respondent was able to pay the principal amount of R.1,29,00,000/- to the
Evasive denials in pleadings are treated as admissions, impacting the outcome of specific performance claims and recovery of amounts paid.
Parties must continuously demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract to successfully claim specific performance; defendants' denial of contract validity shifts the burden of proof on....
The court determined that a suit for specific performance may not be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 if a valid cause of action is pleaded, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
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.
The Court upheld the trial Court's decision to grant relief based on the appellant's admission, demonstrating the importance of pleadings and evidence in determining the scope of relief.
The absence of a forfeiture clause and the defendant's failure to obtain necessary approvals are critical in determining the plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance and injunctive relief.
Proof of sale agreement and advance insufficient for specific performance without continuous readiness and willingness under Section 16(c); denying contract precludes forfeiture; additional appellate....
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
