Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Manoj Kumar Ahuja – Appellant
versus
Gurmej Singh (Since Dead)
Thr. Lrs. and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.130 of 2002
Decided on 8.9.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava
For the Respondents: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Dinesh Kumar Agrawal, Shri S.S. Kushwah
IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement to sell – Suit for Specific Performance of Contract – Readiness and Willingness are two different aspects and both are required to be proved by Plaintiff.
Headnote:
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 19 – Agreement to sell – Suit for Specific Performance of Contract – Readiness and Willingness are two different aspects and both are required to be proved by Plaintiff – Except mentioning that plaintiff was in possession of sufficient means, no other documentary evidence was produced by appellant to show that he was in possession of money – Appellant has not filed copy of his bank statement to show that he had sufficient money in his bank account – He has also not filed his Income Tax Return to show that he was having sufficient money with him – Plaintiff never purchased any stamp paper for execution of sale deed – Appellant was neither in possession of money to pay consideration amount and bear registration charges, and was also not willing to perform his part of contract – Plaintiff was a property broker having no intention to purchase property by himself – Plaintiff has failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 11, 15, 16, 17, 21 and 24)
Result: First Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
This First Appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 22-7-2002 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Dabra, Distt. Gwalior in Civil Suit No.78-A/1991.
2. The appellant is the Plaintiff, who has lost his case from the Trial Court.
3. The appellant/plaintiff had filed a civil suit for Specific Performance of Contract, pleading interalia that Survey No. 29 min area 3.718 hectares is recorded in the name of defendant no.1, Survey No. 27 Min area 1.045 hectares and Survey No. 29 Min area 2.673 hectares, total area 3.718 hectares is recorded in the name of Defendant no.2, and Survey No. 29 Min area 3.717 is recorded in the name of Defendant no.3. The disputed property is situated in Dabra, Distt. Gwalior.
4. The defendants no. 1 to 3 and Kabul Singh and Avtar Singh entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid disputed property at the rate of Rs.15,500/- per Bigha, and accordingly an agreement to sell was executed between the plaintiff and the defendants no. 1 to 3 on 19-12-1988. In all, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid by plaintiff by way of advance and it was agreed that the remaining amount shall be payable at the time of execution of sale deed. As per agreement, the sale deed was to be executed by 1-6-1989. The defendants no. 1 to 3 did not execute the sale deed. The defendants had misrepresented that the disputed property is not under mortgage and that fact was also mentioned in the agreement to sell. On 30-5-1989 and 1-6-1989, the appellant went to the office of Sub-Registrar, where a letter of Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Gwalior was produced on 30-5-1989 to the effect that the disputed property is mortgaged with the bank and loan is outstanding. Therefore, the sale deeds could not be executed. The plaintiff was all the time requesting the defendants no. 1 to 3 to execute the sale deed but the defendants were avoiding to do so. The plaintiff had also offered that he is ready to redeem the mortgage provided the defendants no.1 to 3 are ready to adjust the same in the consideration amount. However, the defendants no. 1 to 3 did not agree for the same also and also did not give the No Dues certificates from the bank. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and accordingly, the plaintiff had also sent a notice to the defendants but still the defendants did not come for execution of sale deed. The plaintiff was continuously making request to execute the sale deed but the defendants did not come to do the same. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed civil suit no.7A/1989, but the plaint was returned on the question of jurisdiction, against which appeal is pending. On 24-11-1991, the defendants have specifically refused to execute the sale deed and accordingly a suit for specific performance of contract was filed.
5. The defendants no. 1 to 3 filed their written statement and admitted the execution of agreement to sell. However, it was pleaded that the plaintiff has not disclosed that to whom Kabul Singh and Avtar Singh have sold the land. It was pleaded that in fact the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract and he was all the time avoiding on the pretext that he is short of funds. The defendants no. 1 to 3 were all the time ready and willing to perform their part of contract, but it was the plaintiff who was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. On 30-31 of May and on 1-6-1989, defendants no. 1 to 3 regularly went to the office of Sub-Registrar, but the plaintiff did not come and accordingly, the defendants no. 1 to 3 gave an application to the Sub-Registrar, thereby expressing their willingness to execute the sale deed. It was denied that the sale deed could not be executed because of letter of the bank. The appellant was not having money for execution of sale deed. He also did not appear before the office of Sub-Registrar, Dabra on 30-31 May and 1-6-1989. It was denied that plaintiff had purchased
