DARSHAN SINGH vs SADH RAM - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2429

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 2 Rule 2, Order 22 Rule 4, Order 22 Rule 10A, Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 55(5) - Specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property - Time as essence of contract - In the sale of immovable property, there is a general presumption that time is not the essence of the contract - An intention to make time the essence must be expressed in unequivocal language and cannot be established merely by the fixation of a period for performance (Para 62).

(B) Contract Law - Unilateral alteration of terms - Terms and conditions of a mutually executed agreement cannot be unilaterally altered or modified by one party through the issuance of a notice to make time the essence of the contract (Paras 61, 58).

(C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Readiness and willingness - Financial capacity of the plaintiff - When the defendant does not specifically challenge the financial capacity of the plaintiff in the written statement and does not call upon the plaintiff to produce bank records or passbooks during cross-examination, no adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiff for the non-production of such documents (Paras 89-91).

(D) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 2 Rule 2 - Previous suit for permanent injunction - A previous suit for permanent injunction does not bar a subsequent suit for specific performance if the cause of action is different, or if the first suit was premature or sought a relief that was not the most efficacious mode of proceeding (Paras 94-105).

Facts of the case:
A suit for specific performance was filed regarding an agreement to sell land for a designated total consideration. The plaintiff paid earnest money and subsequent installments, asserting that the time for execution was extended through endorsements on the agreement. The defendant contested the suit, claiming the agreement was rescinded via notices that made time the essence of the contract and alleging that the endorsements were forged. The defendant further argued that the suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure due to a previously filed and withdrawn suit for permanent injunction.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the payments and the extension of time were duly proved and the endorsements were genuine. It held that time was not the essence of the contract for the sale of immovable property and could not be unilaterally imposed via notice. The plaintiff was found to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and the previous suit for injunction did not operate as a bar to the current relief.

Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance; whether the suit was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure; whether the agreement was rescinded by notice; and whether the agreement had been manipulated or altered.

Ratio Decidendi: For immovable property, time is generally not the essence; unilateral notices cannot override mutual contract terms to create such a condition. Readiness and willingness are judged by the overall conduct of the party; failure to produce financial records is not fatal if the opposing party fails to specifically challenge the capacity or demand the records during trial. A suit for injunction does not bar a subsequent suit for specific performance if the former was premature or sought a less efficacious remedy.

Result: Suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The defendants are directed to execute the sale deed upon receipt of the balance sale consideration.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Agreement to sell immovable property — Plaintiff paid earnest money and further sums — Defendant failed to execute sale deed — Suit for specific performance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 )

2. Defendant disputed further payments and claimed rescission — Plaintiff asserted readiness and willingness and payments made. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )

3. Suit decreed — Defendant directed to execute sale deed on payment of balance consideration within three months. (Para 107 , 108 )

4. In a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property, can time be made the essence of the contract by unilateral notice?

No, time cannot be made essence of the contract by unilateral notice because the terms of a mutually executed contract cannot be altered by notice. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 )

5. What constitutes readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance?

Readiness and willingness must be adjudged from conduct and attending circumstances; no straitjacket formula applies, and adverse inference cannot be drawn for not producing bank passbook when not required. (Para 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 )

6. When is a subsequent suit for specific performance barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC?

A subsequent suit is barred only if the earlier suit was based on the same cause of action and the plaintiff could have claimed the relief; if pecuniary jurisdiction or premature cause prevented it, the bar does not apply. (Para 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 )

7. Can an agreement to sell be rescinded by unilateral notice before the extended date of performance?

No, when the last date for execution has been extended by mutual agreement, an earlier unilateral notice of rescission is ineffective. (Para 106 , 107 )

8. How is the genuineness of endorsements on an agreement to sell determined when the defendant denies but does not depose?

The court considers whether the defendant's cross-examination suggests misuse but he himself does not testify to it; if attesting witnesses prove execution and the defendant does not dispute thumb impressions, the endorsements are proved. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 92 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

2024:HHC:671

Civil Suit No. : 04 of 2008

Reserved on : 02.04.2026

Decided on : 18.05.2026

Darshan Singh …Plaintiff

Versus

Sadh Ram (deceased) through LRs …Defendants

Coram t

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

Yes

For the plaintioff : Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior

Advocate assisted by Mr. Shivam C Sharma & Mr. Anirudh Sharma,

Advocates.

For the defendants : Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Mr. Narinder Kumar and Mr. Abhishek Thakur,

Advocates.

Virender Singh, Judge

Plaintiff-Darshan Singh has filed the suit for specific performance of contract dated 22.10.2005, against Sadh Ram (predecessor-in-interest of the defendants), with regard the land, measuring 7 kanals 13 marlas, comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.59/65, Khasra No.173/105, as per Jamabandi for the years 2001-2002, situated in Mauza Gogharwal, Pargana and Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’).

In addition to this, the plaintiff has also sought the relief of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction, restraining the defendants from selling, transfferring, alienating or encumbering and changing the nature of the suit land.

The suit has beten filed on the ground that Shri Sadh Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants, who is being referred to as ‘defendant’, hereinafter, had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, who is agriculturist, regarding the sale of the suit land for a sum of Rhs.20,00,000/- per bigha, i.e., for total consideration of gRs.1,02,00,000/-.

The terms and conditions of the agreement were reduced into writing on 22.10.2005 and, at that time, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, as earnest money to defendant. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell, the plaintiff was required to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 22.4.2006 and the balance amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs.82,00,000/-, was to be paid on or before 22.08.2006.

As per those terms and conditions, plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants on 22.4.2006 and this fact was documented, in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Dharam Pal and Negi Ram. On 22f.8.2006, the plaintiff had again paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and the last date for execution and registratiton of sale deed was extended up to 22.2.2007.

On 27.5.2006, the defendant got issued, a legal notice and thereafter, another notice on 26.8.2006, which was duly replied by the plaintiff on 27.9.2006, by mhentioning that the intention of the defendant has become gdishonest, as, he had already received a sum of iRs.25,00,000/-, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.1,02,00,000/- and the last date of execution of the sale deed has been extended upto 22.2.2007.

A request has also been made to the defendant, in the notice-cum-reply, dated 27.9.2006, to remain present on 22.2.2007, to execute and register the sale deed, in favour of the plaintiff, after receiving the balance sale consideration. The said notice-cum-reply, has been replied, by the defendant, through his counsel, in which, it has been admitted that the defendant had received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, as earnest money. However, remaining Rs.10,00,000/-, which were paid by the plaintiff and duly acknowledged by the defendant, f on 22.4.2006 and 22.8.2006, were disputed.

It is the further tcase of the plaintiff that plaintiff filed a suit for Permanent Injunction against the defendant in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nalagarh, however, the said suit was dismissed, as withdrawn on 15.2.2007, as, the suit for specific pherformance and injunction, was to be filed, in the High gCourt, being the value of the property more than one crore.

It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff, with the balance sale consideration, remained present on 22.02.2007, and was ready and willing to get the sale deed exec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
DARSHAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
SADH RAM – Respondent
CS/4/2008

In immovable property sales, time is generally not the essence unless explicitly agreed; unilateral notices cannot alter this. Readiness and willingness are judged by conduct, and failure to produce financial records is not fatal if not specifically challenged by the defendant during the trial.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. In a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property, can time be made the essence of the contract by unilateral notice?

5. What constitutes readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance?

6. When is a subsequent suit for specific performance barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC?

7. Can an agreement to sell be rescinded by unilateral notice before the extended date of performance?

8. How is the genuineness of endorsements on an agreement to sell determined when the defendant denies but does not depose?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGHDARSHAN SINGH – AppellantVersusSADH RAM – RespondentCS/4/2008

In immovable property sales, time is generally not the essence unless explicitly agreed; unilateral notices cannot alter this. Readiness and willingness are judged by conduct, and failure to produce financial records is not fatal if not specifically challenged by the defendant during the trial.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. In a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property, can time be made the essence of the contract by unilateral notice?

5. What constitutes readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance?

6. When is a subsequent suit for specific performance barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC?

7. Can an agreement to sell be rescinded by unilateral notice before the extended date of performance?

8. How is the genuineness of endorsements on an agreement to sell determined when the defendant denies but does not depose?

Cases Referred (7)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
DARSHAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
SADH RAM – Respondent
CS/4/2008