Chattisgarh High Court
Kanhaiya vs Ramlal on 25 October, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
First Appeal No. 179 of 2018
Kanhaiya S/o Daulatram Motwani Aged About 39 Years Profession
Business, R/o Sindhipara, Ward No.4, Bemetara, District Bemetara,
Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff).
---- Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Ramlal S/o Khorbahra Satnami Aged About 67 Years Profession
Agriculture, R/o Bhoinabhatha, Post Bawamohtara, Tehsil and District
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
2. State of Chhattisgarh Through the District Magistrate, Bemetara, District
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh (Defendants).
---- Defendant (s)
For Appellant-Plaintiff : Shri Akshaya Uppal, Advocate.
For respondent No.1-Defendant : Shri Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2 : Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, JJ
Judgment on Board
Per, P. Sam Koshy, Judge
25.10.2021
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard finally at motion
stage.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge,
Bemetara dated 15.12.2017 in Civil Suit No.1-A/2014, the present appeal
under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed. Vide the
impugned judgment, the court below has dismissed/rejected the suit for
specific performance of contract filed by the appellant/plaintiff.
3. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal is that the
appellant/plaintiff entered into an agreement with the respondent No.1-
defendant on 22.11.2012 for the sale of land situated at Khasra No.835/1
for a sale consideration of Rs.12,93,750/-. The property exclusively
belonged to respondent No.1. In terms of the agreement entered into
between the parties, an earnest money/advance of an amount of
Rs.60,000/-was paid by the appellant to the defendant No.1. The balance
amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. As per
agreement, the sale deed was got to be registered by payment of balance
amount of sale consideration within a period of one month i.e. 30 days. The
appellant/plaintiff thereafter contends that inspite of repeated request the
respondent No.1 avoided execution of the sale deed and therefore the
appellant-plaintiff was compelled to file a suit for specific performance of
the contract for execution of the agreement dated 22.11.2012. The Suit
was registered as Civil Suit No.1-A/2014.
4. After pleadings were complete, the court below vide impugned judgment
and decree dismissed the suit. The dismissal has been on the ground that
the appellant/plaintiff has failed to meet the requirement as is otherwise
envisaged under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The court found
that the appellant has failed to discharge his responsibility and liability
establishing his readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of
the agreement entered into between the parties so far as his part is
concerned. It is this judgment and decree which is under challenge in the
present appeal.
5. The contention of the appellant is that the findings by the court below on
the aspect of readiness and willingness is contrary to the evidence on
record, particularly the deposition of the plaintiff and the witnesses
examined in support of plaintiff's evidence. According to the appellant,
there has been averment made by the plaintiff as well as by the other
witnesses categorically stating that the appellant/plaintiff has been
repeatedly approaching the respondent No.1/defendant for executing the
sale deed in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties.
That, it was the defendant i.e. respondent No.1 who was always avoiding
the request made by the plaintiff. Therefore, the court below should have
appreciated the evidence of the plaintiff and the supporting witnesses and
ought to have allowed the suit and should have directed the respondent-
defendant to execute the contract at the earliest. Thus, prayed for allowing
the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the court
below.
6. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-defendant drew
the attention of the court to the agreement dated 22.11.2012 entered into
between the parties and submitted that in terms of the agreement the sale
deed had to be executed within the stipulated period agreed upon, which
was 30 days. It was further contention of the respondent No.1-defendant
that there has been a total failure on the part of the appellant/plaintiff in
discharging the liability in terms of the agreement that of paying the
balance amount payable to the defendant No.1 and in getting the sale deed
registered. It was also the contention of the counsel for the defendant No.1
that there is an evidence on the other hand led by the defendant before the
court below by which it can be safely concluded that the appellant infact
has failed to discharge his part of the agreement and when the respondent
No.1-defendant has approached the appellant-plaintiff for the balance of
amount, the plaintiff paid the respondent No.1 another meager amount of
Rs.10,000/- and further avoided of getting the property registered in his
name.
7. According to respondent No.1, since inception there was no preparedness,
readiness or willingness on the part of the appellant/plaintiff, therefore, the
court below has rightly dismissed the suit and as such there is no scope of
interference left for this court and the appeal should be rejected.
8. Having head the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of
records, if we peruse the evidence which has led on either side, and
compare the findings of fact given by the court below, admittedly the
statement on behalf of the plaintiff were as vague as it could be with no
specific details whatsoever provided showing preparedness, readiness and
willingness on his part for execution of the contract. Having perused the
evidence, we find that evidence is missing of details of the readiness so far
as arranging of sale consideration i.e. an amount of Rs.12,33,750/-, the
balance amount payable to the defendant for getting the property
registered in favour of the plaintiff. There is no bank details and documents
adduced as evidence. Neither has the plaintiff been able to show with the
aid of any document that he was infact having the requisite finance
available with him for discharge of his part of the contract. Further, from
the perusal of evidence it is also reflected that there is an admission on the
part of the appellant/plaintiff that when the respondent No.1-defendant had
approached him for the balance of amount, the appellant/plaintiff has paid
him a further amount of Rs.10,000/-, which in other word, goes to show that
the appellant could not arrange more money towards sale consideration
and which also goes against the appellant/plaintiff so far as his inability to
show his readiness and willingness.
9. In the given factual backdrop and which has rightly and duly been
considered by the court below in the course of deciding the suit and in
passing the impugned judgment and decree, this court does not find any
perversity or a contrary finding so as to reach to a different conclusion than
what has been arrived at by the court below.
10. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that
the appellant has failed to establish a case warranting interference to the
impugned judgment and decree. The First Appeal therefore being devoid of
merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
inder
