Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 305

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Gupta, J.
Usha Rani – Appellant
Versus
Shakuntla And Others – Respondent
RSA-447-2019 (O&M)
Decided on : 24-03-2025

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Saksham Mahajan and Ms. Shruti Singla, Advocates

The plaintiffs failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform their part of a contract for specific performance; thus, the appellate court's ruling was erroneous.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 19(b) and 12 - Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 23 and 47 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 48 - Suit for specific performance dismissed - Plaintiffs failed to prove their readiness and willingness to perform the contract; their representative could not stand in for them in proving readiness - Subsequent purchasers were bona fide purchasers for value and without notice - Reversal of trial court's findings improper - Judgment reversed and trial court’s decision restored. (Paras 9.4, 19, 26, 41)

(B) Doctrine of Readiness and Willingness - For a suit of specific performance, the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove not only that they were always ready and willing but also to demonstrate financial capability and necessary personal involvement in the execution process. (Paras 13, 24)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 03.01.2004, which included payment of earnest money of Rs. 7 lakh for a property. The defendants later sold the property to subsequent vendees. The trial court found the plaintiffs did not fulfill their obligations, which was reversed by the appellate court. The appeal was filed by a subsequent vendee against the appellate decision.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court erroneously endorsed the plaintiffs' claims of readiness without personal appearances; it failed to regard the implications of the absence during the critical execution date as well as their financial preparedness as necessary for contract fulfillment.

Issues: 1. The validity of plaintiffs’ claims of readiness and willingness to perform the contract. 2. The bona fides of the subsequent purchasers in light of prior agreements. 3. The jurisdiction of subsequent purchasers to contest plaintiffs' claims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that plaintiffs must substantiate their claims of being ready and willing to perform the contract with credible evidence, which they failed to provide. Additionally, the subsequent purchasers were held to be bona fide, and legal provisions were misapplied by the appellate court.

Result: Appeal allowed; the trial court’s judgment is restored.

Table of Content
1. overview of case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 3)

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Suit for possession by way of specific performance, regarding property in dispute, based on agreement to sell dated 03.01.2004 filed by plaintiffs Shakuntla and others (respondents No.l to 4 herein) was dismissed by the trial Court of Id. Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhiwani vide judgment dated 02.01.2015. However, the appeal filed by the said plaintiffs was accepted by Id. Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, who reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit vide judgment dated 08.10.2018. Against this reversal, one of the defendants, a subsequent vendee, has approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal.

2. Trial Court record was called. Same has been perused. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

3. Suit was filed by four plaintiffs - Smt. Shakuntla and others (respondents No.l to 4 herein) against three defendants namely, Mange Ram, Jagdish and Om Parkash (respondents No.5 to 7 herein). Defendants No.4 to 19 (appellant and respondents No.8 to 22 herein) were impleaded later on as subsequent vendees.

4.1. Concededly, defendants No.l to 3, being owners of the suit land measuring 39 kanal 10 maria had agreed to sell the same to the plaintiffs vide an agreement to sell dated 03.01.2004 @ Rs. 10.60 lakh per acre. Amount of Rs. 7 lakh was received as earnest money by defendants No.l and 2 for themselves and on behalf of defendant No.3. As per the agreement, possession of the land was delivered to plaintiffs. Defendants No.l and 2 being brothers of defendant No.3 had undertaken the liability to get the sale deed executed and registered on behalf of defendant No.3 also. Target date for execution and registration of the sale deed was agreed to be 02.07.2005 and plaintiffs being vendees were entitled to get the sale deed executed in their favour and in favour of their nominees on payment of balance sale consideration. Later on, defendant No.2 was appointed as General Power of Attorney by defendant No.3 vide registered GPA dated 29.07.2004, who acknowledged the receipt of l/3rd of the earnest money on behalf of defendant No.3 and also confirmed the terms and conditions of the agreement on behalf of defendant No.3 by making an endorsement to that effect on 30.07.2004 on the back side of the first page of the agreement.

4.2 As per plaintiffs, prior to the target date, they requested the defendants No.l to 3 to get the sale deed executed and registered on 04.07.2005, as it would be holidays on 02.07.2005 & 03.07.2005. It was further pleaded that on 04.07.2005, plaintiffs accompanied by their relative/ attesting witness to the agreement namely, Sube Singh went to the office of Sub-Registrar, Bhiwani for getting the sale deed executed along with balance sale consideration and other expenses but defendants No.l to 3 did not turn up. Plaintiffs got their presence marked through affidavits of attendance dated 04.07.2005 attested by Sub Registrar, Bhiwani. Plaintiffs pleaded further that they have always been ready and willing and still ready and willing to perform their part of contract and asked the defendants many times but they deferred the matter on one or the other pretext. Later, on 29.12.2006, plaintiffs sent a legal notice to defendants No.l to 3, but they failed to perform their part of contract, constraining the plaintiffs to file the present suit seeking decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 03.01.2004 or in the alternative for refunding double the earnest money along with interest.

4.3 Later on, plaint was amended by the plaintiffs by challenging the four sale deeds all dated 30.06.2005, whereby defendants No.l to 3 had sold the suit property to defendants No.4 to 10. They further challenged the subsequent sale deeds as executed by defendants No.4 to 10 in favour of defendants No.11 to 19. All these sale deeds are