Breach, Injunction, and Justice Served: Gujarat HC Enforces 1985 Property Deal

In a detailed ruling dated April 23, 2026, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad , presided over by Justice J. C. Doshi , dismissed two appeals challenging a 1999 decree from the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. The court upheld specific performance of a 1985 Agreement to Sell (ATS) in favor of plaintiff Alisher Subhanali Ansari (respondent), directing original vendor defendant no.1 to execute the sale deed upon payment of the balance consideration with 9% interest from 1985. It also voided defendant no.1's 1993 sale to defendant no.2 (Miskinbanu Jahidkhan Pathan & Ors., appellants) , executed in defiance of an unchallenged 1987 injunction.

From Earnest Money to Courtroom Battle: The 1985 Deal Unravels

The dispute traces back to October 1, 1985, when defendant no.1, sole owner of leasehold land with structures at Survey No.141-1 Part-191 in Ahmedabad's Sherkotda ward (valued at Rs.16,000), executed a registered ATS with the plaintiff. Plaintiff paid Rs.2,000 earnest money, adjustable at sale deed execution. The ATS fixed a six-month timeframe but lacked any clause for unilateral termination or forfeiture. Plaintiff alleged further payments (Rs.300 on Oct 14, Rs.100 on Oct 17, Rs.6,000 on Dec 12, 1985—proven via diary entry in defendant no.1's handwriting, Exh.108) and repeated requests for execution, which defendant no.1 ignored.

On July 21, 1986, defendant no.1 unilaterally "cancelled" the ATS via notice, forfeiting earnest money—despite no contractual authority. Plaintiff sued September 2, 1986, for specific performance (alternatively damages), securing an injunction on November 11, 1987. Defendant no.1 violated it by selling to defendant no.2 on December 23, 1993 (Exh.127), prompting plaint amendment to join defendant no.2 and void the sale. Trial court decreed for plaintiff in 1999, punishing defendant no.1 with one-day imprisonment under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC (already served). Defendants appealed in 1999.

Vendors' Volley: Time Essence, No Readiness, Bona Fide Shield

Defendant no.1's counsel (Mayur V. Dhotare) argued the suit's non-maintainability sans declaratory relief declaring the cancellation invalid ( I.S. Sikandar v. K.S. Subramaniam , 2013 SCC; Sangita Sinha v. Bhavna Bhardwaj , AIR 2025 SC). Clause 6 made time essence (six months expired March 31, 1986); plaintiff failed Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act readiness/willingness ( Shenbagam v. K.K. Rathinavel , 2022 SCC OnLine; Vijay Kumar v. Om Prakash , 2019 SCC; Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani , 1993 SCC). Only Rs.2,000 paid; no permissions sought; cancellation notice sufficed. Maintainability raisable in appeal ( State of Rajasthan v. Raw Raja Kalyan Singh , 1972 SCC).

Defendant no.2's counsel (Jenil M. Shah) adopted these, claiming bona fide purchase for Rs.80,000 (Rs.40,000 each to defendant no.1 and his brother Prabhudas, amid family disputes), without notice of suit/injunction (Section 19 Specific Relief Act; Section 41 TPA).

Plaintiff's Counter: Conduct Proves Readiness, No Unilateral Exit

Plaintiff's counsel (Aftabhusen Ansari, via Lakshya Bhavnani) countered with K.S. Manjunath v. Moorasavirappa (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2378) and Annamalai v. Vasanthi (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2300): ATS non-determinable; unilateral termination a repudiatory breach, no declaratory relief needed. Payments (total Rs.8,400 pre-suit) and prompt suit post-notice/reply showed continuous readiness/willingness. Time not essence absent explicit penalties or intent ( Chand Rani ). Defendant no.2 failed due inquiry (Section 3 TPA constructive notice; K.S. Manjunath ).

Equity Over Technicalities: Dissecting Readiness, Time, and Notice

Justice Doshi framed key issues: suit maintainability; plaintiff's readiness (Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act); time essence; defendant no.2's bona fides. No ATS clause permitted termination—Clause 8 entitled plaintiff to sue for performance if vendor reneged ( A. Murugan v. Rainbow Foundation , 2019 SCC OnLine Mad; Narendra Hirawat v. Sholay Media , 2020 SCC OnLine Bom; K.S. Manjunath ). Unilateral act breached contract; plaintiff needn't seek declaration ( C.S. Venkatesh v. A.S.C. Murthy , 2023 SCC; J.P. Builders v. Ramdas , 2011 SCC; N.P. Thirugnanam v. R. Jagan Mohan Rao , 1995 SCC).

Plaintiff's extra Rs.6,000 payment (beyond earnest) and suit timing evidenced readiness, inferred from conduct ( trial court paras 15-17 ). Time not essence in immovable property sales absent unequivocal intent ( Chand Rani Constitution Bench; Govind Prasad v. Hari Dutt , AIR 1974 SC)—no forfeiture clause, permissions on vendor.

Defendant no.2 not bona fide: no inquiry despite family disputes; violated lis pendens/injunction ( Chander Bhan v. Mukhtiar Singh , 2024 INSC 377; Sections 41/52 TPA; K.S. Manjunath paras 69-75 ). Trial court noted defendant no.1's "chameleon" testimony.

Court's Razor-Sharp Quotes: Principles Etched in Judgment

"In absence of any condition authorising or permitting the defendant no.1 - vendor to terminate the contract, act of terminating the contract itself if bad rather in breach of terms and condition of the contract."

"The factum of readiness and willingness to perform the part of contract is to be adjudged with reference to the conduct of the party and attending and surrounding circumstances."

"Merely stating some time period to execute the contract, by itself would not be condition to apply the doctrine of 'time is essence of contract'."

"Defendant no.2, who was required to take constructive notice and to make necessary inquiry or such, before purchasing the suit property, has failed to do so and, therefore, his defense cannot be accepted."

Appeals Crumble: Decree Stands, Precedent for Vendee Vigilance

Both appeals dismissed; 1999 decree confirmed. Defendant no.1 must execute sale deed on balance payment (with interest), hand over possession post-retrieval from defendant no.2; 1993 sale void. Stay granted two weeks post-judgment.

This reinforces plaintiff-centric equity in ATS disputes: prove conduct-based readiness, shun sham terminations, demand buyer diligence. Vendors can't evade via notices; subsequent buyers, inquire or perish—echoing recent Supreme Court wisdom on non-determinable contracts.