IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Pankaj Jain
Ajmer Singh – Appellant
Versus
Avtar Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Jain, J.
Defendants are in second appeal. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position before the Court of First Instance i.e. the appellants as defendants and the respondent as plaintiff.
2. Plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance claiming that defendants agreed to sell the suit land in his favour vide agreement to sell dated 15.11.2005 @ Rs.1,04,000/- per Bigha. Rs.20,00,000/- was received as earnest money on the same date. The parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 15.03.2006. Plaintiff claimed that he always remained ready and willing to perform his part and continues to do so, but the defendants having failed to perform their part, decree of possession by way of specific performance be granted in his favour.
3. Defendant No.1 died. He is being represented by his LRs i.e. defendants No.2 to 4. Defendant No.4 was proceeded ex parte. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendants No.2 and 3. Execution of agreement to sell, was denied. As per defendants No.2 and 3, agreement to sell dated 15.11.2005 was a forged, fictitious and fabricated document. It was claimed that Jangir Sin
The plaintiff must independently prove both 'readiness' and 'willingness' to perform under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act to succeed in a suit for specific performance.
The court affirmed that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove valid execution of the agreement and continuous readiness to perform contractual duties, which the plaintiff successfully d....
The burden of proof in specific performance cases lies with the parties, and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract are crucial.
The burden of proof for fraud allegations lies with the defendants, and mere allegations without evidence do not invalidate an agreement for specific performance.
Specific performance of a contract is the rule, while refusal is an exception requiring substantial proof of grounds for denial.
The court ruled that defendants cannot sell land they do not own and upheld the validity of the agreement for the remaining land.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.