Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2381
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SUDESH BANSAL, J.
Ramswaroop S/o Chhotu Ram Jangid – Appellant
Versus
Raghuraj S/o Bhawani Singh Rajput – Respondent
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 20 of 2024
Decided On : 18-11-2025
For the Appellant : Vinay Mathur
For the Respondents: J.K. Moolchandani, Pradeep Singh
The court held that a party seeking specific performance must prove their entitlement through evidence of lawful succession, possession, and clear contractual agreements, which the plaintiff failed to establish.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 20 and 21 - Civil Suit for specific performance - The appeal is against the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of a land sale agreement dated 31.03.1999, wherein plaintiff claimed entitlement through a power of attorney - Disputed land was allotted to deceased Thakur Bhawani Singh, whose legal heirs were claimed to be defendants - Issue of rightful heirship and lawful khatedari resolved by court findings - Court found no evidence that Thakur Bhawani Singh died childless, thus his alleged succession to the State is unproven - The dismissal of the plaintiff's suit is upheld based on his inability to substantiate possession or entitlement to specific performance and the vague nature of the relief sought. (Paras 6-66)
(B) The court emphasized that specific performance is discretionary and no legal basis for such relief exists without proof of rightful heirship or possession. (Paras 44-46)
(C) Legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff cannot pursue a suit post-mortem, nor can they claim relief not outlined within the original pleadings. (Paras 32-33)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claims specific performance based on an agreement executed by a power of attorney holder of the deceased landowner related to a sale that the plaintiff contends was finalized, notwithstanding the subsequent claim of legal heirs who countered the plaintiff's assertion of being the landowner's sole inheritor. (Paras 1-3, 6-9)
Findings of Court:
The trial court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove that the original owner had died without heirs or that they themselves had a claim on the property, thus rendering the suit for specific performance moot. (Paras 6-66)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the agreement to sale, the appointment of the power of attorney, and whether or not the land has substantial contention among alleged heirs. (Paras 6, 12, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The appeal judgment reaffirmed the necessity of standing legal claims supported by clear evidence of possession and writing in their contracts as requirements for successful litigations around land agreements under civil law. (Paras 5-66)
Result: First appeal dismissed and the trial court's decision to deny the plaintiff's case is upheld. (Paras 67-68)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of civil appeal (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of plaintiff, agreement, and parties involved (Para 3) |
| 3. court's assessment of evidence and claims for specific performance (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. consideration of possession issues (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. conclusion on claims regarding property rights (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. assessment of subsequent documentation and events (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. finality of findings regarding defendant status (Para 26 , 27) |
| 8. court's ruling on specific performance and legal heirs (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 9. discussion on court's jurisdiction (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 10. final adjudication on specific performance request (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 11. final conclusion on the plaintiff's suit (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 12. court's discretion in relief granting (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 13. final outcome and disposition of the appeal (Para 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 14. formal dismissal and costs assessment (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
JUDGMENT :
SUDESH BANSAL, J.
1. This Civil First Appeal has been filed by and on behalf of legal representatives of plaintiff (died during suit). Under challenge is the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2023 passed in Civil Suit No.53/2021 (33/2003) by the Court of Additional District Judge, Bassi, Jaipur Metropolitan First, Jaipur, dismissing plaintiff’s civil suit for specific performance and permanent injunction.
2. Hearing of this First Appeal has been expedited, in the light of Order dated 25.04.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17673/2025 and final hearing on merits has been made, with the consent of counsel for both the parties. Counsel for appellants has submitted written statements as well.
3. The relevant facts, in brief, as culled out from the record and which are necessary to adjudicate the issue under consideration in this Appeal, are that: (Note: Parties herein have been referred as they were called in the trial Court)
3.1 Plaintiff led the present civil suit on 18.04.2003, seeking specific performance of an agreement to sale dated 31.03.1999, for 1/3rd part of the land in question stating inter-alia that land in question bearing Khasra no. 305/315, measuring 68 Bigha 16 Biswa situated at Village Padasoli, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur is in Khatedari of one Shri Bhawani Singh, who has passed away just one or two years ago, before filing of the present suit.
3.2 Plaintiff averred that Bhawani Singh had executed a general power of attorney dated 04.08.1997 in favour of Defendant No. 8- Shri Bhagchand to do various acts, like to conduct proceedings before the Khudkasht Commissioner for allotment of land; to take possession and then to sell the allotted land etc. and thus, gave all his right to defendant no.8.
3.3 Plaintiff averred that defendant no.8 did all proceedings and got the land allotted in the name of Bhawani Singh and obtained possession thereof, thereafter, the land was recorded in the Khatedari of Bhawani Singh.
3.4 Plaintiff averred that defendant no. 8, with consent of Bhawani Singh, entered into a deal to sell the entire land of 68 Bigha 16 Biswa to plaintiff and defendant nos. 6 & 7 jointly, against total sale consideration of Rs. 14,44,800/- and executed an agreement to sale dated 31.03.1999.
3.5 Plaintiff further averred that Rs. 14 Lacs were paid jointly by plaintiff and defendant nos. 6 & 7 to defendant no. 8, who transferred possession of land to them and balance sale consideration of Rs. 44,800 /- was paid by him to defendant no. 8 on 05.04.1999. But since defendant nos. 6 & 7 were not agreeable to seek specific performance, hence, plaintiff alone has to file suit for specific performance in respect of 1/3rd share of the land in question.
3.6 Plaintiff further pleaded and prayed that since Khatedar Shri Bhawani Singh has passed away and he died childless, therefore, Court itself should execute the registered sale deed of 1/3rd share of land in question in favour of plaint
