Back
2020 Supreme(UK) 506
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Lok Pal Singh, J.
Deepak Kapoor and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Satish Chandra Mathur and Ors. - Respondent
First Appeal No. 126 of 2015
Decided On : 13-10-2020
For the Appellant :Piyush Garg, Advocate
For the Respondents:Yashpal Singh holding brief of Neeraj Garg, Ranjan Ghildiyal, Rajeshwar Singh and Kishore Rai, Advocates
The plaintiffs must prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract in order to seek specific performance. The compliance of 'readiness and willingness' has to be in spirit and substance and not in letter and form.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Contract - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16, Section 19, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act - The court dismissed the suit for specific performance of contract and passed a decree for refund of money amounting to Rs. 1,57,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum thereon, which was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant no. 1. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and were having sufficient sale consideration from the very beginning. The plaintiffs themselves put a condition in the plaint beyond the agreement to sell that unless the dispute of pathway is resolved they are not willing to purchase the suit property, disentitling them for any relief. The court held that the plaintiffs did not have sufficient cause against defendant nos. 4 and 5 and that the suit was barred by Sections 208, 209 and 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The court also found that the subsequent purchasers were bona fide purchasers for value. The court further held that the trial court did not commit any error of fact or law in dismissing the suit for specific performance of contract and in granting the alternative relief for refund of money.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant no. 1, seeking to purchase a property. The defendant no. 1 failed to obtain the requisite clearances and the sale deed was not executed. The plaintiffs also sought an alternative relief for refund of money.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and were having sufficient sale consideration from the very beginning. The court dismissed the suit for specific performance of contract and passed a decree for refund of money amounting to Rs. 1,57,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum thereon, which was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant no. 1.
Issues: The court considered various issues including whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to execute the sale deed, whether the suit was barred by specific sections of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, and whether the subsequent purchasers were bona fide purchasers for value.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs did not prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, disentitling them for any relief. The court also found that the suit was barred by specific sections of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and that the subsequent purchasers were bona fide purchasers for value.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit for specific performance of contract and passed a decree for refund of money amounting to Rs. 1,57,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum thereon, which was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant no. 1.
JUDGMENT :
Lok Pal Singh, J.
1. Present First Appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015, passed by Addl. District Judge 7th, Dehradun in O.S. no. 452 of 1994, Deepak Kapoor and another Vs. Satish Chandra Mathur and others, whereby the trial court has dismissed the suit for the relief of specific performance of contract and passed a decree for refund of money amounting to Rs. 1,57,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum thereon, which was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant no. 1.
2. Facts leading to filing of present appeal are that Defendant no. 1 (respondent no. 1 herein) executed a registered agreement to sell dated 10.07.1991 in favour of the plaintiffs (appellants herein) in respect of land bearing khasra no. 531M, measuring 1456.76 sq. mt., situated at Village Jakhan, Pargana Central Doon, District Dehradun for a total sale consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/-. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as advance. The defendant seller was to obtain permission under the Land Ceiling Act, as also Income Tax Clearance. The sale deed was to be executed by 10.01.1992. Allegedly a sum of Rs. 92,000/- was paid to the defendant in the first week of August 1991 and a sum of Rs. 55,000/- was paid on 16.08.1991. The time was extended upto 10.08.1992 on the request of the defendant. It is contended that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to get the sale deed executed but the defendant committed default and failed to obtain the requisite clearances. It is further contended that the defendant assured the plaintiffs that he will hand over the property free from all encumbrances. However, the defendant no. 1, intentionally complicated the dispute with regard to passage of the property so that he may not have to execute the sale deed. It is alleged that the plaintiffs/appellants remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar, Dehradun on 10.01.1992 with sale consideration and amount for other expenses, but the defendant failed to appear and rather sought extension of time for which time was extended upto 10.08.1992. On 10.08.1992 too the plaintiffs remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar with sale consideration and amount for other expenses, but the defendant failed to appear. A notice dated 17.06.1994 was issued to the defendant to get the sale deed executed. The defendant gave no reply to the same. A telegram was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1 on 03.07.1994 calling upon him to complete all formalities and to execute the sale deed on 06.07.1994. Again on 06.07.1994, plaintiff remained present in the office of the Sub Registrar along with sale consideration, value of stamps and registration fee but the defendant did not turn up.
3. Feeing aggrieved, plaintiffs/appellants instituted suit, being O.S. no. 452 of 1994, Deepak Kapoor & another Vs. Satish Chandra Mathur. During pendency of the suit, defendant no. 1 disclosed that he has executed two sale deeds, both dated 01.07.1997, and sold the property in two parts to Smt. Chandani Mathur and Sri Suresh Chandra Mathur. The said subsequent purchasers were impleaded as defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the suit. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 further sold the suit property to defendant nos. 4 and 5 respectively vide sale deed dated 09.07.2001. Defendant no. 4 further sold the property to defendant no. 6 vide sale deed dated 19.12.2003. The said defendants were impleaded in the suit and consequential amendments were made in the plaint.
4. Defendant no. 1 filed his written statement and admitted the agreement. However, he denied subsequent receipt of amount and claimed his signatures to be forged on the receipts. It was stated that defendant no. 1 was not in India specifically in May, June, July and August 1991. The plaintiffs were informed by the Court vide order dated 01.05.1997 that defendant is residing in U.S.A. It was further averred that plaintiffs suppressed the order dated 01.05.1997 and played fraud u
