IMPORTANT POINT
Readiness and willingness of parties as also other factors are relevant for granting relief of specific performance.

Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 10, 12 and 20 – High Court grating specific relief only on basis of genuineness of one document – Not readiness and willingness of parties and other factors – Not sustainable. (Para 7)
       Facts of the case:
       The trial court had decreed specific performance.
       The High Court in first appeal reversed the decree.
       Finding of the Court:
       High Court did not consider readiness and willingness of parties and other factors.
       Result: Impugned order set aside, matter remitted.

JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Delay condoned.

3. Leave granted.

4. By the impugned judgment, the High Court in First Appeal, against the judgment dated 8th April, 2005 in Civil Suit No. 93A/1996 (renumbered Civil Suit No. 20A/2001; 6A/2003) on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge, Gwalior, reversed the decree for specific performance.

5. The Trial Court had framed the following issues :-

S. No.	ISSUE	CONCLUSION
1.	Whether defendant No.1 executed agreement to sell of suit land in favour of plaintiffs in the year 1975?	Unproved
2.	Whether defendant No.1 had executed fresh agreement to sell of suit land in favour of plaintiffs on 15.1.1989 as prices of suit land had risen and a mutual compromise had arrived between plaintiffs and defendant No.1?	Unproved
3.	Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get the sale deed of suitland 5 Bigha having satiated the sum of Rs. Two lakh Eighteen thousand to defendant No.1 according to the agreement to sell dated 15.01.1989 and to get the vacant possession of suit land?	No
4.	Whether suitland is government land due to which plaintiffs have not got the right to sell/transfer the same?	Unproved
5.	Whether plaintiffs did not issue notice under Section CPC to defendant No.2? If yes, then its effect?	Suit was instituted having obtained permission from the Court.
6.	Whether defendants Nos. 3 to 11 are bonafide purchasers of suitland? If yes, then its effect?	Proved. Plaintiffs are not entitled to get the relief sought.
7.	Whether plaintiffs have undervalued the suit land have satiated deficient court fee? If yes, then its effect?	No
8.	Relief and cost?	Suit dismissed.
Additional issue :
9.	Whether an order dated 24.01.1996 passed in the suit No. 41A/95 bears the effect of res judicata in this case? If yes, then its effect?	No

All the issues were answered against the plaintiffs.

6. On re-appraisal of the evidence, the High Court took the view that Exhibit P-1 was genuine and therefore, decreed the suit. It will be appropriate to incorporate herein the following paragraph as also the decreetal portion of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court :-

“21. Learned counsel for the respondents have pointed during argument that agreement Exhibit P-1 is a suspicious document looking to the other agreement Exhibit D-13 in which rate of suit land has been mentioned as 2.50 rupees per square ft. But this agreement has been written on plain paper that put on 15.01.1989 and not signed by consenting parties who have signed the agreement Exhibit P-1 on the same day. Therefore, in the absence of signatures of any witness or consenting party agreement Exhibit D-13 cannot be relied, even the agreement Exhibit P-1 which is signed not only by the parties but also by the witnesses and family members of defendant No.1 who have given their consent for the agreement. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have also raised certain objections for disbelieving the agreement Exhibit P-1 but considering the fact that by Exhibit D-10, defendant No.1 Harcharan Singh has admitted the execution of agreement Exhibit P-1 and even after admission and having knowledge about document Exhibit P-1 he has not taken any step against the appellants for fabrication of document Exhibit P-1. This fact along with admission of defendant No.1 shows that agreement Exhibit P-1 is a genuine document. It cannot be disbelieved on the ground that notice in the paper regarding agreement mentioning different date of agreement as the execution and contents of agreement Exhibit P-1 has been admitted by defendant No.1 in Exhibit D-10, therefore, evidence against such admission befo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2016 Supreme(SC) 194

IMPORTANT POINTReadiness and willingness of parties as also other factors are relevant for granting relief of specific performance.

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
Readiness and willingness of parties as also other factors are relevant for granting relief of specific performance.