Arjun Prasad vs Ganesh Prasad - 2023 Supreme(All) 646

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 646

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Jaspreet Singh, J.
Arjun Prasad And Others - Appellant
Vs.
Ganesh Prasad And Others - Respondent
Second Appeal No. - 131 of 1993
Decided On : 05-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.N.Saxena, Adnan Ahmad, Arvind Kr. Sinha, K.P.Singh
For the Respondent: G.S.Nigam, Arvind Kumar Jauhari, D.P.Gupta, Madan Gopal Misra, O.P. Tiwari, P.L.Mishra, Shafat Ullah Khan, T.C.Gupta

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 10, 16 and 20 - Second appeal for specific performance of a contract - The trial Court denied the decree for specific performance on grounds of alleged misinterpretation of documents and passage of time since execution of the agreement, while the lower Appellate Court allowed it, modifying conditions based on escalation of property prices - Courts emphasized that the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract (Paras 19, 26, 29, 38, 59, 74).

(B) Discretionary Relief - The specific performance of a contract is an equitable remedy; the Court’s discretion must be sound and reasonable and not arbitrary, linked to the facts and circumstances of the case - Escalation of property prices and timing of performance are relevant considerations in exercising this discretion (Paras 40, 41, 43, 51).

(C) Findings of the Court - The Court found that the agreement was executed by the late Sarju Prasad, and the defendants failed to prove their claims against the plaintiffs’ entitlement to specific performance - The final decision rendered by the lower Appellate Court was modified to include a condition on the payment amount based on market value (Paras 55, 70, 74).

Result: Second appeal dismissed; decree for specific performance modified to include a payment condition.

Table of Content
1. suit for specific performance initiated. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. defendants contested execution and validity of the agreement. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. appellants argue plaintiffs failed to demonstrate readiness. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. counsel arguments rely on precedents. (Para 15 , 16)
5. court considers essential ingredients for specific performance. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. key provisions of specific relief act discussed. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
7. court affirms readiness and willingness requirement. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
8. judicial discretion in specific performance cases emphasized. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
9. escalation of property prices not a sole basis for denial. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
10. court balances equities between parties. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
11. conditions for granting specific performance laid out. (Para 42 , 43 , 44)
12. court's discretion based on conduct and circumstances. (Para 45 , 46 , 47)
13. final determination on suitability for specific performance. (Para 48 , 49 , 50)
14. final order on payment adjusted with market conditions. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
15. order emphasizes compensation conditions. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)
16. registration laws relevant to execution questioned. (Para 60 , 61 , 62)
17. court confirms execution validity concerns. (Para 63 , 64 , 65)
18. final confirmation on the decree with conditions. (Para 66 , 67 , 68)
19. final conclusion regarding decree and payment terms. (Para 69 , 70 , 71)
20. court modifies decree considering all facts. (Para 72 , 73 , 74)
21. final order and judgment conclusion. (Para 75)

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. The instant second appeal has been preferred by the defendants-appellants emanating from a suit for specific performance of contract filed by the plaintiffs-respondents, wherein the trial Court by means of the judgment and decree dated 07.04.1992 refused the decree of specific performance which was assailed before the lower Appellate Court and the lower Appellate Court by means of its judgment and decree dated 02.12.1992 has set aside the decree of trial Court and has decreed the suit for specific performance, prompting the defendants-appellants to knock the doors of this Court under Section 100 CPC.

2. The instant second appeal was admitted by the Court on 24.03.1993 on the substantial question of law as formulated in the memo of appeal, Clause A, which reads as under:-

A. Whether the learned court below have misread and misinterpreted documents on record which renders their findings, perverse, incorrect, illegal?

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the second appeal, certain relevant facts relating to the suit are being noticed hereinafter.

4. Ganesh Prasad and Satish Kumar, both minors sons of Kanhaiya Lal, through their father and natural guardian, had instituted a suit for specific performance of contract dated 12.08.1983 in terms whereof the original vendor, namely, Sarju Prasad had agreed to sell the property in dispute bearing No.367 (New No.346), situate in Jawahar Nagar, District Unnao. In terms of the said agreement executed by Sarju Prasad, it was agreed that for a total sale consideration of Rs.12,500/-, Sarju Prasad would sell the property in dispute to the minor sons of Kanhaiya Lal for which a sum of Rs.500/- was paid by the plaintiffs to Sarju Prasad as earnest money and the remaining consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of the saledeed. The agreement also contemplated that the sale-deed would be executed within a period of one month and the possession will be transferred to the plaintiffs at the time of execution of the sale-deed.

5. It was also pleaded that before the sale-deed could be executed, Sarju Prasad expired and he was survived by his wife and three children, who were impleaded as the defendants. It was also recorded in the plaint that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of contract and they had requisite means of paying th