Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
P.K.Jaiswal, J.
Jagdish Chandra Dwivedi and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Kamlrani - Respondent
Decided On : 24-06-2009
specific performance - contract - Indian Contract Act, 1872, Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 10, 19(b) - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the Specific Relief Act, 1963, particularly focusing on Section 10 and 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, which protect the rights of the parties in a contract for specific performance. The court analyzed the evidence and the terms of the agreements to determine the existence of a concluded contract and the bona fide nature of the subsequent purchaser.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff brought a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a house based on an agreement dated 22/12/1979. The defendants contested the existence of a concluded contract and claimed a prior agreement with another party for the same property. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the subsequent purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser and that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that there was a valid agreement dated 22/12/1979 and that the prior agreement dated 5/10/1979 was neither signed nor acted upon and was virtually abandoned. The subsequent purchaser was not considered a bona fide purchaser, and the plaintiff was found to be ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was a concluded contract between the parties and whether the subsequent purchaser was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the original contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the subsequent purchaser failed to establish that he was a bona fide transferee for value without notice of the contract for sale between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The court also emphasized the importance of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract.
Final Decision: The trial court's judgment decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with costs throughout.
P.K. Jaiswal, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants who are defendants 1 to 3 before the trial Court, against the judgment and decree dated 8/7/1997 passed by 9th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 92-A/95 whereby learned trial Court decreed the suit of respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of contract on the basis of an agreement executed on 22/12/1979 (Ex.P/3) by appellants 1 and 2 in favour of respondent and declared the sale deed dated 30/3/1981 (Ex.D/6) executed by appellants 1 and 2 in favour of appellant No. 3 as null and void. The trial Court also granted a decree of possession of the bath room shown as "B" in the plaint map, from appellant No. 3/defendant No. 3.
2. The plaintiff had brought a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of suit house No. 708 situated at Marhatal Ward, Rashid Ganj, Jabalpur on the basis of an agreement dated 22/12/1979 (Ex.P/3/D-1) entered with her by defendants 1 and 2.
3. As per agreement dated 22/12/1979, out of total consideration of Rs. 55,000/- a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid on the date of agreement and rest of Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. As per terms of the agreement, the vacant possession of the house agreed to be sold, shall be delivered by defendants 1 and 2 to the plaintiff. They shall close the door by raising the partition wall in between House No. 708 and 709, Marhatal, Jabalpur. This partition wall shall be constructed by defendants 1 and 2 in the Courtyard of House No. 708 separating the Courtyard from the adjoining passage portion where wall was to be constructed, is shown by letters 'X' and 'Y' in the plaint map. The said construction shall be made before execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 2 shall apply to the competent authority, Jabalpur under the Urban Ceiling Act, 1976 for obtaining requisite permission for sale of the above stated house in favour of the plaintiff and after obtaining the requisite permission shall intimate the plaintiff about it by registered post. On receipt of the information, the plaintiff shall get the sale deed executed from defendants 1 and 2 within two months therefrom. In case of failure of the defendants 1 and 2 to perform their part of aforesaid contract, the plaintiff shall be entitled to seek specific performance of the contract through Court and in that event costs of the suit and damages shall be the liability of defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff shall be entitled to deduct the same from the balance of the sale consideration. On 11/1/1980, respondent/plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 7500/to the defendants 1 and 2 towards part payment of the balance of the sale consideration and the further balance of Rs. 42,500/-was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed.
4. It is averred that plaintiff has always been ready and prepared to perform her part of the contract and is still ready to perform her part of contract but defendants 1 and 2 are not ready to perform their part of contract and whenever reminded, defendants 1 and 2 avoided to perform their part of the contract on some pretext or the other. It is further averred that in her readiness to perform her part of the contract, the plaintiff had already purchased a non-judicial stamps of the value of Rs. 5000/-on 30/5/1980 (Ex.P/2) and was to purchase stamp of the remaining value subsequently because on 30/5/1980 stamp of a lower denomination were not available. After purchase of stamps and completing other formalities, the plaintiff through her husband requested defendants 1 and 2 to perform their part of contract and to execute a sale deed of the aforesaid house in her favour but they refused to do so. It is further pleaded that defendants 1 and 2 in-connivance with defendant No. 3 with an ulterior motive to avoid to perform their part of contract by defendants 1 and 2 and to dispos
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
