(1) Pali Hazra vs Jai Prakash Chourasia
2025 Latest Caselaw 3079 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

(1) Pali Hazra vs Jai Prakash Chourasia on 4 March, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                            Second Appeal No. 258 of 2019

            (1) Pali Hazra
            (2) Babru Hazra
            (3) Mahesh Hazra
            (4) Akshay Kumar Singh ...        Defendants/Appellants/Appellants
                                     Versus
            1. Jai Prakash Chourasia
                               ... ....          Plaintiff/Respondent/ Respondent
            2. Gudni Devi
            3. Sanju Devi      Defendants/Proforma Respondent/Respondents
                                     ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Sanket Kumar, Advocate

---

15/04.03.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the point regarding readiness and willingness to perform the part of the contract by the plaintiff in the specific performance of contract as contemplated under Section 16(1) (c) of the Specific Relief Act has not been considered properly by both the Courts. He submits that the learned Trial Court has put the onus on the defendant without recording that the plaintiff was ready and willing to do his part of the contract and so far as the learned Appellate Court is concerned, the Appellate Court has observed that the plaintiff was put in possession of the property and has considered the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act instead of examining the case within the contours of the readiness and willingness under Section 16(1) (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

3. The learned counsel has also submitted that the agreement in the present case is of the year 1998 and during the pendency of the suit, a portion of the property was transferred in favour of the defendant no. 2 by the defendant no. 1 on 30.01.2006 but neither any relief was sought challenging the sale deed nor any relief was sought asking the subsequent purchaser to join the execution of the sale deed.

4. Considering the aforesaid submissions and upon going through the judgment passed by both the courts, this appeal is admitted for hearing on following substantial question of law: -

(a) Whether the learned courts have properly exercised their power while considering the readiness and willingness by the plaintiff to perform the plaintiff's part of the contract in terms of Section 16(1) (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

(b) Whether the suit for specific performance of the entire area of 47 decimal could be passed in favour of the plaintiff in absence of any relief regarding cancellation of subsequent sale deed with respect of a portion of the property and without claiming any relief in connection with asking the defendant no. 2 to join the defendant no. 1 for the purposes of execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as a result of Specific Performance of the Contract?

5. Let notice be issued to the respondents for which requisites etc. under ordinary process be filed by the appellants within a period of one week from today.

6. Let the records be called for from the court concerned.

7. Post this case under the heading for 'Final disposal' on 27.03.2025 under appropriate heading.

8. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit