Specific performance is a discretionary relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act; it is not automatic and requires the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness at all material times and establish a valid, enforceable contract, failing which the court should decline the decree.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 12(2), 16(c), 20, 21, 22 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 1 - Specific performance of contract - Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale - Readiness and willingness - Burden of proof - Trial court decreed suit despite lack of evidence regarding specific performance and failure to consider partial performance under S. 12(2) - Appellate court found decree perverse due to absence of proof of readiness and willingness and failure to exercise judicial discretion under Section 20 - Suit dismissed as plaintiff failed to prove valid execution and entitlement to relief. (Paras 1, 8, 12, 13, 20, 36, 40)

Facts of the case:
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance based on an alleged agreement of sale dated 31.08.2012 for the purchase of 3.21 acres of land. The appellant-defendant denied the execution of the document, terming it a creation. The trial court decreed the suit, directing the execution of the sale deed. During pendency, the defendant sold a portion of the land to the Government (Ex.A5), which was not accounted for by the trial court in its decree.

Findings of Court:
The Appellate Court observed that the respondent-plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and failed to demonstrate any substantial acts or losses. Further, the court noted that the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and failed to consider the partial alienation of land under Section 12(2).

Issues: 1) Whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to specific performance? 2) Whether the trial court's judgment is perverse or illegal?

Ratio Decidendi: Specific performance is a discretionary relief that requires the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness at all material times (S. 16(c)). Where the contract is disputed and no evidence of performance or substantial acts by the plaintiff is shown, the court should not grant specific performance, especially when there is a lack of clear boundaries and the trial court fails to properly exercise its discretion under Section 20.

Result: Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of the trial court set aside; suit dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the suit for specific performance and the disputed agreement. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. summary of trial court findings and issues framed. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. arguments presented by appellant and respondent regarding proof and partial performance. (Para 9)
4. legal framework regarding section 12(2) and section 20 of the specific relief act. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. analysis of evidence and factual discrepancies in the agreement execution. (Para 17)
6. review of precedents governing specific performance, readiness, and judicial discretion. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT:

1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant-defendant under Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon, Warangal District in OS.No.111 of 2012, dated 30.06.2017.

2. Appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in OS.No.111 of 2012.

3.1. Respondent-plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of contract in respect of agreement of sale dated 31.08.2012.

3.2. It is stated in the plaint that the appellant-defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule property admeasuring Acs.03-21 guntas in Survey No.156, situated at Laxmapuram Village and he offered to sell the same to the respondent-plaintiff, after deliberations the sale consideration is fixed at Rs.2,21,000/-per acre, respondent-plaintiff agreed to purchase the same and he paid an amount of Rs.4,500/- to the appellant-defendant as advance, agreement came to be executed on 31.08.2012.

3.3. As per the agreement of sale dated 31.08.2012, Rs.1,00,000/- has to be paid on 09.09.2012, half of the sale consideration has to be paid within one month and the remaining sale consideration to be paid in the month of December, 2012. Respondent-plaintiff in performance of his part of contract, approached the appellant-defendant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on 09.09.2012, but he refused to receive the same. Respondent-plaintiff once again approached the appellant-defendant in the first week of October, 2012 and requested him to receive the sale consideration and register the sale deed but he refused to receive the amount. As the appellant-defendant is avoiding to perform his part of contract on one pretext or the other, the respondent-plaintiff has got issued legal notice on 16.10.2012 demanding the appellant-defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and perform his part of contract, as he failed to do so, respondent-plaintiff filed the suit.

4. Appellant-defendant filed his written statement and denied the contents of the plaint in toto and further contended that he has not executed any document in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and the alleged document is a created one.

5. The learned trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the agreement of sale dated 31.08.2012 is true, legal, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

3. Whether the defendant has committed breach of contract?

4. Whether there is no cause of action to the plaintiff to file the suit?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance as prayed for?

6. To what relief?

6. Respondent-plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and also examined PW.2-Kola Narsi Reddy and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Appellant is examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B8. It is apt to mention here that Ex.A5 is marked in the cross-examination of DW.1.

7. The learned trial Court after analysing the evidence adduced by the parties and after going through the documents marked thereon has decreed the suit with costs directing the defendant (appellant herein) to execute regular sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration within 2 months, failing which the plaintiff (respondent herein) shall proceed as per law.

8.1. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submits that the learned trial Court ought to have seen that in a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 65010

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADB.R.Madhusudhan Rao, JMohd Imamuddin – AppellantVersusNukala Ravinder Reddy – RespondentA.S.NO.875 OF 2017

Specific performance is a discretionary relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act; it is not automatic and requires the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness at all material times and establish a valid, enforceable contract, failing which the court should decline the decree.

Cases Referred (7)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, J
Mohd Imamuddin – Appellant
Versus
Nukala Ravinder Reddy – Respondent
A.S.NO.875 OF 2017