Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Mahendra Singh - Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Singh - Respondent
Second Appeal No.195 of 1993
Decided on : 24-08-2020
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 10 – Suit for specific performance of contract – Plaintiff-respondent’s suit, being Original Suit, was tried and decreed by Civil Judge, Kanpur Dehat vide his judgment and decree – Plaintiff-respondent appealed to the learned District Judge, Kanpur Dehat vide Civil Appeal – Said appeal was heard and allowed with costs by the Ist Additional District Judge, decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract, vide his judgment and decree –
Finding of the Court:
It would, appear that there is no straitjacket formula that governs the exercise of discretion to grant or refuse specific performance on account of price escalation. – In this case, what is most pertinent, is that the suit was instituted promptly and within a year of the suit agreement. – In fact, it was instituted during time contemplated by the agreement, which was one year, once the plaintiff noticed refusal. – This adds to the bona fides about his claim and strengthens entitlement to the relief of specific performance that he seeks. – Suit, thus, instituted on 31.05.1990, was decided by the Trial Court on 03.02.1992. – Plaintiff loosing before the Trial Court, promptly lodged an appeal. The appeal was filed to the District Judge on 03.03.1992. – Appeal was decided on 31.08.1992. – Lower Appellate Court on 31.08.1992 decreed the suit. Now, the defendant filed the present appeal before this Court on 15.02.1993. It was admitted to hearing on 16.02.1993 and the decree stayed till further orders. – Thus, the plaintiff secured the decree before the Lower Appellate Court within a span of about two years and a half. – Long lapse of time during which the decree has remained in limbo is on account of pendency of this second appeal before this Court, preferred by the defendant. – There is nothing to show that the plaintiff has decisively contributed to this delay in any manner. – Price rise, if that be a factor, during these twenty-seven years that this second appeal by the defendant has remained pending, cannot be capitalized upon to sway this Court’s discretion. – Court is assured that the Lower Appellate Court has rightly exercised discretion to grant specific performance on the facts of the case, the pleadings of parties, the evidence on record and circumstances that appear. – Substantial question of law no.7 is answered in the negative, but in terms that the discretion has been properly exercised on a consideration of relevant evidence, facts and circumstances by the Lower Appellate Court. –
Result: Second Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a defendant’s second appeal, arising from a suit for specific performance of contract.
2. The plaintiff-respondent’s suit, being Original Suit no.319 of 1999, was tried and decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Kanpur Dehat vide his judgment and decree dated 03.02.1991. The plaintiff-respondent appealed to the learned District Judge, Kanpur Dehat vide Civil Appeal no.10 of 1992. The said appeal was heard and allowed with costs by the Ist Additional District Judge, decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract, vide his judgment and decree dated 31.08.1992.
3. Ramesh Singh, the plaintiff-respondent instituted Original Suit no.319 of 1990 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Kanpur Dehat on 31.05.1990 against Mahendra Singh, the defendant-appellant, seeking specific performance of a registered agreement to sell dated 24.06.1989, relating to an unpartitioned half share in agricultural land, detailed in Schedule d to the plaint.
4. Mahendra Singh, the defendant-appellant shall hereinafter be called, ‘the defendant’. Ramesh Singh, the plaintiff-respondent shall hereinafter be referred to as, ‘the plaintiff’. The registered agreement to sell dated 24.06.1986 executed by the defendant in the plaintiff’s favour, shall be called, ‘the suit agreement’. The property, subject matter of dispute between parties, set forth in Schedule d to the plaint, bears the following description: half share in agricultural plot no.64, admeasuring 6 bigha 4 biswa and 5 biswansi, with a total annual revenue of half part of Rs.33.25 paise, situate at Village Anwan, Tehsil Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat. The defendant is bhumidhar with transferable rights of the aforesaid half share in plot along with his brother, Sewa Ram. The said land is hereinafter referred to as, ‘the suit property’.
5. The plaintiff’s case is that the defendant is bhumidhar with transferable rights of the suit property, a right which he held on 24.06.1989. The plaintiff is a native of Village Anwan since days of his ancestors, but has meager agricultural holding. The plaintiff desired a larger holding. The defendant, on the other hand, wished to part with the suit property in order to invest in business and to meet his other needs. He disclosed his desire to sell the suit property to natives of the village, as also others in the vicinity. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into negotiations about working out a deal for the plaintiff to purchase the suit property. The parties struck bargain at a price of Rs.50,000/-.
6. In accordance with the aforesaid settlement of the transaction, the defendant executed a registered agreement to sell dated 24.06.1989 in the plaintiff’s favour, covenanting to execute a sale deed, conveying the suit property to the plaintiff. Of the agreed sale consideration, the plaintiff paid to the defendant a sum of Rs.30,000/-as earnest prior to execution of the suit agreement. It is averred in the plaint that at the time of execution of the suit agreement and its registration, the plaintiff paid a further sum of Rs.15,000/-towards the agreed consideration, which the defendant received before the Sub-Registrar.
7. It is the plaintiff’s case that in this manner, the defendant received a total sum of Rs.45,000/-in cash until execution of the suit agreement, leaving a residue of Rs.5000/-to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the covenanted sale deed. The suit agreement stipulated a period of one year for the execution of the deed of sale. It is the plaintiff’s further case that a few months after execution of the suit agreement, he secured necessary funds to pay the remainder consideration of Rs.5,000/-and to defray expenses of execution and registration of the conveyance. It is specifically averred in the plaint that the plaintiff had and still has ready money with him to pay the balance sale consideration and expenses for purchase of requisite stamp papers and defraying expenses of execution and registration of the
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
