[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Meenakshi Sinha vs State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026: JHHC: 2652
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 115 of 2025
1. Meenakshi Sinha, aged about 52 years, wife of Late Manoj Kumar
Sinha
2. Kunal Sinha, aged about 31 years, son of Late Manoj Kumar Sinha
3. Nidhi Sinha, aged about 27 years, daughter of Late Manoj Kumar Sinha
All residents of Laxmi Niwas, Ranchi-Patna Road, New Loyala Centre,
P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribag (Jharkhand)
... ... Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Deputy Commissioner, Collectorate, Hazaribag, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S.
Sadar, District Hazaribag.
3. Khas Mahal Officer, Collectorate, Hazaribag, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S.
Sadar, District Hazaribag.
4. Arjun Lal, son of Hari Prakash Lal, resident of Rajendra Path,
Matwari, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribag (Jharkhand)
5. Mahabir Tiwari, son of Shivdut Tiwari, resident of Village Sarley,
Dipugarha, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribag.
6. Raghwendra Prasad Singh, son of Laxman Singh, resident of Village
Koghati, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribag (Jharkhand)
... ... Defendants/Respondents/Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents :
---
nd
12/2 February 2026
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.04.2025
(decree signed on 09.05.2025) passed by the learned District Judge-II,
Hazaribag dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2023 and confirming the
judgment dated 26.06.2023 (decree signed on 07.07.2023) passed by the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-III, Hazaribag in Title Suit No. 92
of 2016.
2026: JHHC: 2652
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
plaintiffs have lost in both the courts and accordingly, they are the
appellants before this Court.
4. The learned counsel submits that the learned courts have recorded
that there was no readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiffs,
but this aspect of the matter has not been property considered and
therefore a substantial question of law be framed. No other point has been
argued for the purposes of framing substantial question of law.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds
that the learned 1st appellate court has recorded a clear finding that there
was inordinate delay of more than 8 years after execution of the
agreement of sale dated 25.02.2008 and after more than 3 years of renewal
of lease deed in favor of original owner on 16.05.2013. The materials
placed on record have been discussed to come to a finding that there was
no readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiffs with respect to
the plea seeking specific performance of contract. The relevant extract of
the findings recorded by the learned 1st appellate court is quoted as
under:-
"26. Perusal of above-mentioned legal notice dated
23.11.2013 Ext.2, in the present case shows that the factum of
renewal of lease deed, quoted as prerequisite for execution of
Sale Deed in the agreement dated 25.02.2008 was well within
the knowledge of the plaintiff in the year 2013 itself.
....................................................................................
......
It is worthwhile to mention here that vide said legal notice the
defendants were called upon to execute the sale deed in favour
of the plaintiff within a fortnight from the date of receipt of
said notice, failing which the plaintiff was to, inter-alia, file
the Civil Suit for redressal of his grievance.
27. However, the plaintiff instead of filing the Civil Suit
despite having the valid cause with him to do so as per the
contents of the legal notice dated 23.11.2013 kept mum for
almost 2 years and 3 months, i.e. when he got issued a second
legal notice to the defendants on 08.2.2016. Still further the
2026: JHHC: 2652
Suit in the present case was filed after expiry of almost 4
months from the date of second legal notice.
28. As such in view of this inordinate delay of more than 8
years after execution of the Agreement to Sale dated
25.02.2008; and after more than three years of renewal of
lease deed in favour of original owner on 16.05.2013,
covenanted as prerequisite to execution of sale deed in the
Agreement to Sell; and after expiry of almost 2½ years from
the issuance of first legal notice to defendants, in filing of the
suit speaks volumes about his Bonafide and willingness to
perform his part of the agreement.
29. The above-mentioned period of delay cannot by any
stretch of imagination be termed as reasonable period with the
plaintiff to file the suit. As such the time consumed by the
plaintiff to perform his part of the agreement, clearly shows
his lackadaisical and indifferent attitude towards prosecution
of his interest in the matter. It is settled law that granting
decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of
immovable property is not automatic. It is one of discretion to
be exercised on sound principles of equity based upon justice,
good conscience and fairness to both the parties.
30. In view of my above findings I am of the considered
opinion that the discretion vested in Court while adjudicating
the aspect of specific performance in a contract for sale of
immovable property, has well been exercised by the learned
trial court in the present case. The impugned judgment and
decree based upon sound legal principles are hereby affirmed.
As such, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any
merit. Since the main appeal is dismissed, all the pending
successive applications filed by the appellants seeking
temporary injunction are rendered infructuous accordingly.
Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared
accordingly. Trial court's record along with a copy of this
judgment be returned to the court concerned through its
Presiding Officer for consignment forthwith. Appeal file be
consigned to the record room after due compliance."
6. There are concurrent findings on the point of readiness and
willingness after appreciating the materials on record. No perversity in the
matter of appreciation of evidences on record as such has been pointed out
by the learned counsel for the appellants.
2026: JHHC: 2652
7. This Court finds no reason to frame any substantial question of law
on the point as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
9. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.
10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned
through 'e-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 02.02.2026
Mukul/-
Uploaded On: 04.02.2026
