Bombay High Court Upholds Specific Performance Decree Despite Procedural Flaws

February 26, 2025

The Bombay High Court recently handed down a judgment in First Appeal No. 1841 of 2024 , upholding a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement despite procedural irregularities in the lower court. The case, Sharifa Dost Mohammed et al. v. M/s. Ajit Developers Pvt. Ltd. et al. , involved a dispute over a property sale agreement signed in 1995.

Case Overview

The dispute stemmed from a 1995 agreement where Dost Mohammed agreed to sell a property to Ajit Developers Pvt. Ltd. The appellants (legal heirs of Dost Mohammed ) argued that the lower court's decision was flawed due to the admission of evidence considered inadmissible. The lower court had decreed specific performance, ordering the appellants to complete the sale.

Arguments Presented

The appellants contended that the trial court improperly relied on documents (a resolution, a possession letter, bank statements, and a written statement from a previous suit) that were not properly admitted into evidence due to insufficient deposition. They further argued that the death of one defendant resulted in the abatement of the suit.

Ajit Developers, the respondent, countered that the evidence, including the written statement from the earlier suit which admitted to the agreement and payment, sufficiently proved the agreement's existence, the payment made, and their readiness and willingness to fulfil their part of the bargain. They highlighted that the appellants’ failure to file a written statement in the original suit further weakened their position.

Court's Reasoning

Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh carefully considered the appellants’ objections. While acknowledging that some documents were not formally marked as exhibits, the Court found that the underlying evidence supporting the agreement's existence and the partial payments were sufficient. The Court also noted that the appellants' failure to provide a written statement hindered their defence. Key to the court's decision was the fact that the plaintiff’s witness had given sworn testimony and provided the original documents in question to the court, even though they were not properly marked as exhibits. The court ruled that this was a procedural, not substantive issue. The court also addressed the issue of the deceased defendant, finding that no evidence presented suggested the existence of other heirs who would have challenged the decision, thus no abatement occurred.

Crucially, the Court stated: "Even if the bank statement and the written statement are excluded from consideration, in light of the evidence on record, the Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement." This highlights that the decision wasn't solely based on the challenged documents but on a preponderance of evidence.

Decision and Implications

The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decree for specific performance. This decision emphasizes that while procedural correctness is important, courts will consider the substantive evidence to ensure justice is served, particularly when the opposing party hasn't actively participated in the proceedings or presented a robust defense. The ruling also underscores the importance of filing a written statement in a timely manner. This ruling provides guidance on how courts might approach cases where procedural errors don't necessarily undermine the core findings of a case related to contracts.