Jharkhand High Court
Krishnanand Rai vs Meena Singh on 19 November, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. A. No. 122 of 2025
1. Krishnanand Rai, aged about 57 years.
2. Yogeshwar Pd. Rai, aged about 56 years.
3. Deo Das Pd. Rai, aged about 54 years.
All sons of late Nawal Kishore Rai, resident of Village Dakai,
P.O. Manigarhi, P.S. Sarwan, Sub-Division and District-Deoghar.
Late Nawal Kishore Rai (Defendant No.1 in Title Suit No.2 of
2013) died on 01.02.2023 therefore, he has not been made
party in the instant appeal.
... ... Defendant 1st party/Appellants/Appellants
Versus
1. Meena Singh, wife of Dharmendra Singh and daughter of Late
Mahavir Singh, resident of Karnibad, Jhousagarhi Sahid Ashram
Road, Deoghar, P.O. +P.S. + Sub-Division and District Deoghar.
... ... Plaintiff/Respondent 1st Party/Respondent
2. Vivekanand Rai, S/o Lakhan Lal Rai, R/o Karnibad, P.O.
Naulakha Ashram Deoghar, P.S. Kunda, Sub-Division and
District-Deoghar
3. Monaj Kr. Tiwary, S/o Nilkanth Tiwary, R/o Baghmara, P.O.
Daburgram, P.S. Jasidih, Sub-Division and District-Deoghar
... ... Defendant 2nd party/Respondent 2nd Party/
Performa Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Ankur Anand Advocate
For the Respondents :
---
05/19.11.2025
1. Heard the learned counsel for appellants.
2. This second appeal has been filed against the Judgment and
Decree dated 22.03.2025 (Decree sealed and signed on 03.04.2025)
passed by the learned District Judge-III, Deoghar in Civil Appeal
No.20 of 2023 whereby affirming the Judgment and Decree dated
24.01.2023 (Decree sealed and signed on 04.02.2023) passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge (Senior Division)-III, Deoghar whereby
Title Suit No.28 of 2013 seeking specific performance of contract was
partly decreed.
3. The defendants having lost in 1st appellate stage has filed the
second appeal.
4. The title suit was partly decreed in favour of plaintiff by the
learned trial court and the 1st appeal filed by the defendants was
dismissed by the learned 1st appellate court. The defendant 1st party
are the appellants before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the
impugned judgments has submitted that the learned trial court did not
frame any specific issue in connection with readiness and willingness
on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. The
learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 8050-8051 of
2022 [V.S. Ramakrishnan vs. P.M. Muhammed Ali] decided on 09th
November, 2022 and has referred paragraph 4.1 of the said judgment
to submit that no finding can be recorded with respect to readiness and
willingness in absence of specific issue framed to that effect. He
submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case had
remanded the matter by framing that issue for consideration by the
learned trial court.
6. He has also submitted that the learned courts have failed to
consider that the father of the plaintiff was contesting a case against
the defendant in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. which was
initiated on 17.07.2009 and was ultimately dropped on 04.09.2009 and
in the meantime the agreement of sale was entered on 12.08.2009. He
submits that it is almost an impossibility that in the midst of a
proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. the agreement of sale will be
entered into between the parties. He submits that this aspect of the
matter has not been considered by the learned courts while upholding
the validity of the agreement.
7. Learned counsel has also submitted that the specific
performance has been allowed with respect to undivided portion of the
property inasmuch as there has been no partition with respect to the
suit property which stood recorded in the name of the defendant and
his brother. He submits that the brother of the defendant was not even
a party in the suit for specific performance of contract and even in the
agreement the brother of the defendant was not a party. The learned
counsel for the appellants has submitted that there cannot be any suit
for specific performance of contract with respect to undivided share in
the property.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that
one title suit being T.S. No. 147 of 2009 was pending challenging the
sale deed which was executed in favour of the defendant with respect
to the property which was involved in the present case and though the
suit was dismissed but Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2023 is pending before
the learned 1st appellate court. He submits that the present suit was
barred under Section 10 of the CPC.
9. During the course of hearing, a specific query was put to the
learned counsel for the appellants as to whether any petition seeking to
keep the adjudication of the suit in abeyance under Section 10 was
filed by the appellants. He has submitted that no such petition was
filed, but still the court should have Suo Motto kept the matter pending
awaiting the decision of Title Suit No. 147 of 2009/ Civil Appeal No.
10 of 2023.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the
proposed substantial question of law Nos. (i), (ii), (iv) & (v) which are
as follows:-
I. Whether the decree for specific performance is legally tenable
when the execution and validity of the sale agreement are
doubtful and not conclusively proved, especially in light of
inconsistencies in evidence or suspicious circumstances
surrounding the alleged agreement?
II. Whether the courts below erred in law by granting specific
performance of an agreement executed by one co-owner in
respect of the entire undivided property, without partition or
identification of his share?
III. Whether the decree for specific performance is legally
sustainable when the suit property is already sub judice in a
prior pending litigating involving ownership, thereby
attracting the bar under Section 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908?
IV. Whether the court below erred in law in granting specific
performance despite the plaintiff failure to prove readiness
and willingness to perform his part of the contract as
mandated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?
11. The learned counsel submits that the aforesaid substantial
questions of law be framed and decided.
12. Arguments concluded.
13. Order is reserved.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
19.11.2025
Rakesh/-
