RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
P.K. Lohra, J.
Baldev Raj Chopra —Appellant
versus
Rakesh Kumar —Respondent
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 106 of 1987
Decided on 29.3.2013
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 20—Specific performance of contract—Act of 1963 is inspired by principles of equity, justice and good conscience and reliefs to be granted under Act of 1963 are founded on equitable considerations—Court while deciding question regarding specific performance of contract cannot altogether overlook amount of inadequacy of consideration amount and passage of time by which cost of property in question has escalated—Rigor of Section 20 of Act of 1963 which provides that grant of relief of specific performance of contract is discretionary, also deserves due credence as said issue also deserves to be decided simultaneously—If Court feels that consideration to be received by defendant is so grossly inadequate with reference to set of things existing at the date of contract has to be either by itself or coupled with other circumstances including undue advantage taken by plaintiff—If inadequacy of consideration is so much as to shock conscience of Court in respect of fairness of agreement, it is a case of gross inadequacy of consideration making instrument vulnerable on anvil of being unconscionable contract—Specific performance is not a matter of right but rests on the sound discretion of court—It will not be enforced as a matter of course when it will impose unreasonable or unjust hardship on defendant. (Paras 40 , 44 and 45)
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
P.K. Lohra, J.— Appellant/defendant has laid this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) for assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 5.10.1987 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar (for short, ‘learned trial Court’).
2. The learned trial Court on adjudication of the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff has passed a decree for specific performance of contract in his favour and against the appellant.
3. The factual matrix, as depicted in the plaint, is that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a civil suit against the appellant/defendant for specific performance of contract, inter-alia, on the ground that the appellant-defendant executed an agreement to sale in respect of his House No.130, ‘E’ Block, Sri Ganganagar, measuring 32 x 50 ft, for a consideration amount of Rs.40,000. As per description in the plaint, the house in question is having six rooms and latrine etc, and the agreement to sale .was executed on 21st of December 1981. The respondent/plaintiff also averred in the plaint that at the time of agreement to sale, security amount/earnest money of Rs.10,000 was paid to the appellant on the same day and in lieu thereof the appellant handed over possession of one room and kitchen to the respondent. Subsequently, the appellant/defendant again approached the respondent on 11th November 1982 and received a sum of Rs.5,000 against the consideration amount, and an endorsement to this effect was made by him overleaf the agreement to sale. Thus, according to the respondent/plaintiff, by 11th November 1982, out of total consideration amount of Rs.40,000, a sum of Rs.15,000 was paid by him to the appellant-defendant, and therefore, the outstanding consideration amount remained confined to Rs.25,000 only. The factual antecedents in the plaint further reveal that as per agreement to sale, the appellant/defendant was under an obligation to execute a registered sale deed within a year from the date of execution of agreement to sale however the said duration was extended by him upto 19th February 1983 but even after expiry of the said date the appellant failed to fulfill his promise and no steps were taken by him to perform his part of the contract by execution of registered sale deed for the house in question. Plaintiff-respondent also averred in the plaint that as per terms of the agreement, entire expenditure for registration was required to be paid by the respondent-plaintiff, therefore, in order to show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, the plaintiff/respondent sent a registered notice to the appellant on 27th January 1983 calling upon the appellant to execute registered sale-deed in his favour. In the notice, the respondent has also stated that he is prepared to pay the remaining consideration amount of Rs.25,000 as well as the requisite expenditure charges. However, as per the version of the respondent/plaintiff in the plaint, the appellant refused to accept the said notice and as such the said registered envelope returned back undelivered. For persisting his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract, the respondent-plaintiff thereafter sent a telegram to the appellant on 16th of February 1983 which was received by the appellant. With all these averments, the respondent-plaintiff has asserted in the plaint that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract but the appellant-defendant has not acceded to his request and failed to perform his part of contract in .terms of the agreement. In order to show his bona fides, the respondent-plaintiff has also stated in the plaint that on the appointed day i.e. on 19th February 1983, he visited the office of Sub Registrar (Registration), Sri Ganganagar and presented an application on 19th February 1983 in his office, thereby he conveyed the Sub Registrar that he is prepared to pay the remaining consideration amount as well as the registrat
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwan & Anr. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Iswar Bhai C. Patel alias Bachu Bhai Patel v. Harihar Behera & Anr.
Mrs. Om Prabha Jain v. Abnash Chand & Anr.
Bhagwan Datta Shastri v. Ram Ratanji Gupta and Ors.
Smt. Roppi Bai v. Mahaveer & Ors.
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.
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.