Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2297
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
ANUSHREE,
Smt. Manju Bala Alias Manjula Chordia – Appellant
Versus
Pritesh – Respondent
FA 477/2022
Jitendra Bharat Mehta,
The court affirmed that specific performance can be granted when the plaintiff proves readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and subsequent transactions by the defendant are void under the Transfer of Property Act.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52 - Specific performance - Decree for specific performance granted for sale agreement dated 17.04.2009, declaring subsequent sale deeds void - Plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform contract, while defendant failed to execute sale deed despite being present - Court upheld trial court's findings on evidence and credibility of witnesses. (Paras 12, 34, 39)
(B) Specific Performance - Conditions for granting specific performance - The court emphasized that specific performance should be granted unless there are justifiable reasons against it, and the conduct of the parties is crucial in determining the outcome. (Paras 30, 34)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 17.04.2009 for agricultural land, alleging that the defendant sold the land to another party despite the agreement. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, declaring subsequent sale deeds void.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's decree for specific performance was upheld, confirming that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, while the defendant failed to execute the sale deed.
Issues: The main issues included whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract and whether the trial court was justified in granting specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff's readiness and willingness were established, and the defendant's failure to execute the sale deed justified the decree for specific performance. The court also noted that the defendant's subsequent sale transactions were void under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Result: Both appeals dismissed; judgment and decree of the trial court confirmed.
COMMON JUDGMENT
First Appeal s No.428/2022 and 477/2022
01. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 96 of CPC, the appellants / defendants No.5 (Ashish) and 6 (Anil Kumar) have filed First Appeal No.428/2022 and the appellant (Manju Bala) / defendant No.1 filed another First Appeal No.477/2022 calling in question the validity, legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2022 passed by V District Judge, Ratlam (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.267-A/2010 decreeing the suit filed for specific performance and declaration declaring that the sale deeds dated 20.09.2010, 18.12.2013 and 13.12.2016 are void in respect of disputed agricultural land situated in Village Viriyakhedi, Ratlam in survey No.162/4 area 0.640 hectares.
02. Since these appeals are arising out of the judgment in Civil Suit No.267-A/2010 dated 08.02.2022, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment with the consent of all the counsels.
03. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.267-A/2010.
04. The necessary facts and legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties are stated herein with a view to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and decree in decreeing the suit for specific performance and for declaration declaraing the registered sale deeds dated 20.09.2010, 18.12.2013 and 13.12.2016 are void in respect of disputed agricultural land requires to be examined by following these appeals.
05. In this judgment for the sake of brevity, I would like to refer to the ranking of the parties as assigned in the plaint presented before the Court. Since there is congruence in mentioning exhibits in judgment of the learned trial Court, I will refer to the documents as per annexures presented along with these appeals.
06. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under :
The plaintiff (Pritesh) has filed a suit against the defendants No.1 to 6 seeking for specific performance and declaration declaring that the registered sale deeds dated 20.09.2010, 18.12.2013 and 13.12.2016 are illegal and void and for permanent injunction for the disputed agricultural land bearing survey No.162/4 situated in Village Viriyakhedi, Ratlam admeasuring 0.640 hectares. Further averred that defendant No.1 (Manju Bala) is the owner of the disputed agricultural land / schedule property, which is free from encumbrances proposed to sell the entire disputed land to the plaintiff for Rs.14,50,000/-. Considering the negotiations, the defendant No.1 (Manju Bala) had executed an agreement of sale dated 17.04.2009 in favour of the plaintiff by receiving an advance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of Cheque No.1350219 of Mandsaur Regional Rural Bank, the said cheque was encashed by defendant No.1. Further averred that plaintiff would pay remaining amount of sale consideration to the defendant No.1 on or before 17.07.2010 (15 months) and condition was imposed that if the plaintiff fails to pay the balance sale consideration within 15 months, the agreement of sale executed by defendant No.1 will be cancelled and the advance amount paid by the plaintiff will be forfeited. Accordingly, plaintiff secured the balance sale consideration of Rs.11,50,000/- called upon the defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of plaintiff as he was ready with a balance sale consideration, approached the Sub-Registrar Office on 17.07.2010 and purchased the stamp and obtained receipt from the Office of Sub-Registrar. Despite that, the defendant for the reasons best known to her, she could not attend the Sub-Registrar Office for execution of the sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration, hence, for breach of agreement, the plaintiff made inquries on 15.11.2010 and he came to know that the defendant No.1 has sold the subject land to defendant No.2 and executed a sale deed of the disputed land on 20.09.2010 for sale consideration of Rs.15,0
