SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Telangana) 150

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.
Vinod Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Late Kishan Lal Ji Agarwal - Appellant
Vs.
T.Dhan Singh S/o. Late Shanker Singh - Respondent
CCCA.No.14 of 2019 And CROSS Objection No.37 of 2019
Decided On : 22-01-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MADDELA RAVINDER
For the Respondent: A DEEPTHI

Parties must continuously demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract to successfully claim specific performance; defendants' denial of contract validity shifts the burden of proof onto the plaintiff.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 1 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16 - Appeal against rejection of specific performance of sale agreement - Appellant-tenant claimed specific performance, asserting readiness and willingness to complete sale, yet defendants denied agreement's validity and payment claims - Trial Court dismissed specific performance request, awarding refund with interest instead. (Paras 10, 16-19, 31, 36)

(B) Specific performance - Requirements - Must demonstrate readiness and willingness continuously; if defendant disowns the agreement, performance readiness becomes irrelevant. (Paras 18, 27.3)

Facts of the case:
Appellant plaintiff engaged in an agreement of sale for property with defendants who disputed the transaction’s validity. Appellant alleged payment of Rs.9 Lakhs towards sale, while defendants contended the agreement was coerced and denied receipt of funds. (Paras 5.1, 24.1)

Findings of Court:
Trial Court upheld that appellant had not proved the agreement’s validity for specific performance but ordered a refund of Rs.8,55,000/- with interest at 6%. (Paras 10, 36)

Issues: Were all essential specifics established for the appellant's claim? Did the trial court err in its dismissal of specific performance in favor of a refund? (Paras 16, 27.3)

Ratio Decidendi: Even if the existence of an agreement is admitted, the court considers continuous readiness to perform from the agreement's inception. The burden of proof rests on the party asserting payment under the agreement. (Paras 18, 25.4)

Result: Appeals and cross-objections dismissed; each party to bear their own costs.

Table of Content
1. appellant's grievance against judgment in specific performance case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT :

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1.1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.513 of 2007, dated 30.11.2018 on the file of III Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad challenging the rejection of specific performance.

1.2. The respondents-defendants have filed Cross Objection No.37 of 2019 under Order 41 Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) challenging the very same judgment and decree in refunding the advance amount with interest.

2. Appellant is the plaintiff. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the defendants in OS No.513 of 2007.

3. During pendency of the suit, respondent No.2-defendant No.2 died and her LRs are brought on record as respondent Nos.3 to 5-defendant Nos.3 to 5.

4. During pendency of the Appeal, respondent No.3 died and his LRs are brought on record as respondent Nos.6 to 8.

5.1. Appellant-plaintiff has filed suit under Section 26 & Order 7, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) praying the Court to pass a judgment and decree in his favour against the respondents-defendants with a prayer for specific performance of Agreement of Sale, dated 13.04.2006 against the respondents- defendants by directing them to execute registered sale deed in his favour, in alternate direct the respondents-defendants to refund an amount of Rs.9 Lakhs and to pay compensation of Rs.9 Lakhs with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization.

5.2. It is stated in the plaint that respondent Nos.1 and 2- defendants are the absolute owners of the Ground Floor Mulgi, First floor and second floor bearing Municipal Nos.5-3-264, 5-3- 264/1 and 5-3-24/2 respectively together with an extent of 175.36 square yards out of total extent of 225.36 square yards situated at Goshamal, Hyderabad. Appellant-plaintiff is in occupation of Ground and First floor portions as tenant and paying rents regularly, respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants are not in a habit of issuing any receipts. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants have offered to sell the Ground floor Mulgi bearing No.5-3-264 and First Floor bearing Municipal No.5-3-264/1 and 5-3-264/2 along with undivided share in the land admeasuring 175.36 square yards out of 225.36 square yards. They have entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 13.04.2006 and the appellant-plaintiff has paid Rs.9 Lakhs towards part sale consideration under a receipt and agreed to pay the balance amount at the time of registration. The total sale consideration fixed in the Agreement of Sale is Rs.19 Lakhs. The time fixed for completion of sale transaction is 10 months from the date of Agreement of Sale. Appellant-plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying balance sale consideration of Rs.10 Lakhs within the time stipulated. On 11.02.2007, appellant-plaintiff approached the respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants along with Mahender Agarwal by offering the balance sale consideration of Rs.10 Lakhs. But the respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants requested some more time for execution of sale deed. Appellant-plaintiff constrained to address a letter, dated 11.02.2007 to respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants through registered post with acknowledgement due stating that he is ready to pay the balance sale consideration and willing to perform his part of contract. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants failed to comply the conditions under the agreement and are taking steps to alienate the suit property to third parties and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

6.1. Respondent No.1-defendant No.1 has filed his written statement and contended that respondent No.2-defendant No.2 expired on 09.01.2008, they never offered to sell the property to the appellant-plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.19 Lakhs. The Ground Floor Mulgi was obtained by the appellant-plaintiff on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top