Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Agrawal vs Shri Balveer Singh Bagga (Dead) ... on 20 April, 2023
Author: Arun Kumar Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
ON THE 20 th OF APRIL, 2023
FIRST APPEAL No. 838 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
ARUN AGRAWAL S/O SHRI R.P.AGRAWAL, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. E-7/11, LALA LAJPATRAI
SOCIETY, ARERA COLONY, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ASHISH GIRI - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. SHRI BALVEER SINGH BAGGA (DEAD) THR.
LRS GURUDAYAL SINGH BAGGA S/O LATE
BALBIR SINGH BAGGA, AGED ABOUT 52
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: WORKING AS
INSURANCE ADIVISAS, R/O KOMAL
APARTMENT FLAT NO.1, BEHIND
CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL IDGAH HILLS
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BALWANT SINGH BAGGA S/O LATE SHRI
BALBIR SINGH BAGGA, AGED ABOUT 49
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: WORKING AS RTO
R/O. 29, NEELKANT COLONY IDGAH HILLS
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ROHIT SOHGAURA - ADVOCATE AND SHRI DAYA
SHANKAR DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE )
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
This is the plaintiff's first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal feeling aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.07.2011
passed by learned Fourth Additional Judge to the court of Tenth
Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Bhopal, in R.C.S.No.274-A/08,
whereby the suit instituted by the appellant / plaintiff for specific
performance of contract has been partly decreed in his favour.
2. At the outset it is necessary to mention here that during the pendency
of this appeal, one of the plaintiff namely R. P. Agrawal has died.
Moreover, the respondents are the legal representatives of the original
defendant Balveer Singh who also died during the pendency of this appeal.
For convenience, the appellant and the respondent will also be referred by
their ranks in the suit as 'plaintiff and defendant', respectively. The
plaintiff's case, as projected in the plaint filed on 4.3.2008 is that the
plaintiff and one R.P. Agrawal instituted a civil suit no.274-A/08 against
the original defendant Balveer Singh before the Fourth Additional Judge of
the Court of Tenth Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Bhopal, for
specific performance of the contract / agreement, inter alia alleging that the
defendant entered into an agreement vide Ex.P/1 dated 23.7.2007 with the
plaintiff for sale of suit property viz plot no. 9, area 2400 Sq. ft. situated in
Munnipuram Colony behind Ravi Shankar Nagar, Chaar Imli, Bhopal, for
a total sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs only).
According to the plaintiff, earnest money was paid to the defendant and
agreed to pay the balance amount on fulfillment of conditions ascribed in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
t h e agreement. Before execution of the sale deed, the defendant was
required to obtain necessary permission from the competent authority i.e.
Avas Raahat Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Bhopal because on the date of
agreement, the said Samiti which had allotted plot no. 9 to the respondent -
defendant, had not yet executed any sale deed in favour of the defendant.
According to the agreement, upon execution of the deed of lease in
favour of the defendant and after observing all other formalities as laid
down in the agreement, he would execute the sale deed within a period of
three months from the date of execution of the deed of lease in favour of
the defendant by the said Samiti. The lease deed in favour of the defendant
was executed on 13.11.2007 vide Ex.P/2 but the defendant never informed
the plaintiffs about the same and instead, cancelled the agreement by giving
a legal notice dated 20.2.2008 vide Ex.P/4 through his Advocate which
was replied by the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, they were always
ready and willing to perform their part of contract. The plaintiff repeatedly
requested the defendant to execute the agreement, however, the defendant
continuously avoided the same. However, ever after execution of lease
deed and transfer of the plot in favour of the defendant, he neither
informed the plaintiffs nor executed the sale deed in favour of the
plaintiffs. As the defendant failed to perform his part of contract, the
plaintiffs filed the suit.
3. The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments.
According to the defendant, on 13.11.2007 the Samiti executed lease of
deed in favour of the defendant and it was well within the knowledge of the
plaintiffs. According to the agreement dated 23.07.2007, the plaintiffs
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
were supported to pay the remaining outstanding amount to the defendant
within a period of three months from the date of allotment of the land in
favour of the defendant by the Samiti but the plaintiff did not fulfill the
conditions of the agreement. It is also averred that the plaintiff was not
having sufficient fund to perform his part of contract. Therefore, the
defendant issued legal notice on 20.2.2008 through his Advocate and the
agreement to sale dated 23.07.2007 was cancelled. However, the plaintiff
refuting the contents of the said notice strongly contended that he was not
having knowledge of the execution of lease deed in favour of the
defendant. On 29.2.2008 the defendant through his Advocate also given
reply to the notice dated 20.2.2008 got published by the plaintiff in the
daily newspaper and prayed that the suit be dismissed.
4. Based on the above extracted pleadings of the parties, the trial Court
framed five material issues for determination; recorded the evidence of the
parties and finally decreed the suit partly vide impugned judgment and
decree dated 29.07.2011. However, learned trial Court decided two issues
in favour of the plaintiffs but finally decreed the suit by directing the
defendant to refund the amount so received by him with interest at the rate
of 12% per annum to the plaintiff. Further trial Court held that bye-laws of
the Samiti have restricted transfer of the plot for a period of seven years
and that being so, the defendant could not have transferred the plot in
question in favour of the plaintiffs. It has been further observed that the
amendment in the Co-operative Societies Act, though not retrospective,
also prohibited transfer vide Section 72-E, because of this reason, the trial
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
court did not order for execution of the sale deed by the defendant in
favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property.
5. Assailing the findings recorded by the trial Court against the plaintiff,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has asserted that the
trial Court has committed grave error of law and facts in holding that the
plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract in terms of agreement
Ex.P/1. In fact, he expressed his readiness and willingness to perform his
part of the contract by furnishing details of the bank account vide Ex.P/10
to P/15 which are sufficient to show bona fide on the part of the appellant
/ plaintiff. The plaintiff has been able to prove his readiness and willingness
as per the mandate of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. Further,
the provisions as relied on by the trial Court are prospective in nature and
not retrospective in nature. Thus, the same could not have been a ground
for denying decree of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff.
Further, the defendant failed to prove the execution of lease deed dated
13.11.2007 (Ex.P/2) in his favour and presence of the appellant by way of
evidence of its attesting witness. Thus, the material breach of contract was
on the part of the respondent / defendant who did not intimate the
appellant about execution of lease deed by Samiti in his favour and
execution of lease deed in the presence of the appellant not established by
independent witness as per Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. In
support of the said contentions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Jagjit Singh v. Amarjit Singh (2018) 9 SCC 805 Para 4,
J.P. Builders v. a. Ramadas Rao (2011) 1 SCC 429 Paras 22 and 25
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
to 27, Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha (2010) 10 SCC 512 Paras
17 and 23 and Rami Bai v. LIC of India, 1981 MPLJ 192 Para 11
a n d prayed that the appeal be allowed passing a decree for specific
performance of contract in favour of the appellant in its entirety.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the
time was of the essence of the contract as a specific period was mentioned
for the deposit of the remaining sale consideration and in fact, the
consequences of the failure to deposit the remaining sale consideration
have also been explicitly spelled out in the agreement to sale dated
23.7.2007 vide Ex.P/1. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this
Court to Sections 72-D and 72-E of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act,
1960 and Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Section 54 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Further contended that the trial court
has rightly passed the judgment and decree. The trial court has passed a
detailed judgment taking into consideration all aspect of the matter and
facts and circumstances of the case. To buttress his contentions, learned
counsel for the respondents has relied upon Hasvantbhai Chhanubhai
Dala v. Adesinh Mansinh Raval and others (2019) 2 GLH 357 paras
38, 66, 69, 72, 73 and Chandrabhan Chunnilal Gour v. Shravan
Kuma r Khunnolal Gour and another, 1980 Mh. LJ 690 and
contended that the relief of specific performance is an equitable relief and
weighing the entire facts and circumstances, the trial Court rejected the
relief of specific performance of contract in favour of the appellant /
plaintiff and there is no irregularity as such.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at great
length and also perused the record and considered in depth the impugned
judgment passed by the trial Court as well as the case law cited by rival
parties.
8 . A plain reading of para 19 of the judgment of the trial court it is
evident that the trial court has found that the appellant / plaintiff had
sufficient fund at the time of agreement for payment of remaining balance
amount and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was not capable
to purchase the suit property on account of insufficient fund. Hence, the
contention of the defendant that the appellant had not sufficient fund is
incorrect and irrelevant.
9. As per clause 4 of the agreement dated 23.07.2007 (Ex.P/1), the
appellant has paid Rs.10,11,000/- to the defendant and it also agreed by
the parties that Rs.5,00,000/- shall be paid by the plaintiff till 15.8.2007 and
remaining sale consideration shall be paid after three months from the date
of lease deed to be done in favour of the defendant by the Samiti after
completing all other formalities as laid down in the agreement. Further, on
perusal of clause 1 to 3 of the agreement it is crystal clear that the
defendant signed the agreement being exclusive owner and possession
holder of the suit property and he had all right reserved for transaction of
the suit property.
10. On perusal of the conditions of the agreement it is found that the
respondent / defendant did not fulfill the conditions of the agreement dated
23.07.2007 even after taking huge amount from the appellant which is
evident from the agreement Ex.P/1 itself. It is also found that the appellant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
/ plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The
readiness and willingness of the appellant is also axiomatic from Ex.P/7
dated 28.8.2010 by which paper publication was got done by the
appellant through his Advocate in the daily newspaper with regard to
purchase of the suit property in which it is clearly mentioned that the
appellant has entered into an agreement with the respondent - defendant
and he has also paid earnest money and he is also ready to pay the balance
amount. The conduct of the appellant is luminous and showing his
promptness and eagerness to perform his part of contract. However, the
respondent / defendant raised an objection and an information in this
regard was also published in the daily newspaper as is evident from
Ex.P/8. From perusal of the agreement and the evidence of the
defendant, it is evident that the defendant had taken earnest money from
the plaintiff in lieu of agreement to sale. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff
paid Rs.2,11,000/- in cash and Rs.3,00,000/- was paid through
D.D.No.584887 dated 24.07.2007 ICICI Bank, Branch Itarsi to the
defendant. One glaring aspect of the matter is that the defendant
throughout in his pleading has never denied contents of the agreement
dated 23.7.2007 Ex.P/1 and payment of the amount from the plaintiff. The
agreement vide Ex.P/1 dated 23.7.2007 is not disputed between the
parties. The trial Court decided issue no.1 in favour of the appellant /
plaintiff and observed that the defendant has failed to fulfill the conditions
enumerated in the agreement.
11. Further, the trial Court in its para 19 of the judgment has given
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
finding to the effect that the appellant - plaintiff has expressed his
readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract by furnishing
details of the bank account vide Ex.P/10 to P/15 which are sufficient to
show bona fide on the part of the appellant / plaintiff. It has also been
observed that the plaintiff had sufficient fund to perform his part of
contract. Further, trial Court in para 16 of its judgment has observed that
despite readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, execution of the sale deed
could not have been done.
12. The appellant has been able to prove his readiness and willingness
as per the mandate of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act which reads as
under :-
16. Personal bars to relief - Specific
performance of a contract cannot be enforced
in favour of a person-
(a) who has obtained substituted performance
of contract under Section 20; or
(b) who has become incapable of performing,
or violates any essential term of, the contract
that on his part remains to be performed, or
acts in fraud of the contract, or willfully acts
at variance with, or in subversion of, the
relation intended to be established by the
contract; or
(c) who fails to prove] that he has performed
or has always been ready and willing to
perform the essential terms of the contract
which are to be performed by him, other than
terms the performance of which has been
prevented or waived by the defendant.
Explanation. For the purposes of clause (c),
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
- (i) where a contract involves the payment
of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to
actually tender to the defendant or to deposit
in court any money except when so directed
by the court;
(ii) the plaintiff must prove aver performance
of, or readiness and willingness to perform,
the contract according to its true construction.
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi,
reported in (2019) 3 SCC 704 has held as under :
7. It is a settled principle of law that the
grant of relief of specific performance is a
discretionary and equitable relief. The
material questions, which are required to
be gone into for grant of the relief of
specific performance, are:
7.1. First, whether there exists a valid and
concluded contract between the parties for
sale/purchase of the suit property.
7.2. Second, whether the plaintiff has been
ready and willing to perform his part of
contract and whether he is still ready and
willing to perform his part as mentioned in
the contract.
7.3. Third, whether the plaintiff has, in fact,
performed his part of the contract and, if so,
how and to what extent and in what manner
he has performed and whether such
performance was in conformity with the
terms of the contract;
7.4. Fourth, whether it will be equitable to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
grant the relief of specific performance to
the plaintiff against the defendant in relation
to suit property or it will cause any kind of
hardship to the defendant and, if so, how
and in what manner and the extent if such
relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff;
7.5. Lastly, whether the plaintiff is entitled
for grant of any other alternative relief,
namely, refund of earnest money, etc. and,
if so, on what grounds.
14. The Supreme Court in the case of C.S. Venkatesh v. A.S.C.
Murthy, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 280 has held as under :
16. The words ready and willing imply that
the plaintiff was prepared to carry out those
parts of the contract to their logical end so far
a s they depend upon his performance. The
continuous readiness and willingness on the
part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to
grant the relief of performance. If the plaintiff
fails to either aver or prove the same, he must
fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready
and willing to perform his part of contract, the
court must take into consideration the conduct
of the plaintiff prior, and subsequent to the
filing of the suit along with other attending
circumstances. The amount which he has to
pay the defendant must be of necessity to be
proved to be available. Right from the date of
the execution of the contract till the date of
decree, he must prove that he is ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract.
The court may infer from the facts and
circumstances whether the plaintiff was ready
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
and was always ready to perform his
contract.
17. In N.P. Thirugnanam v. R. Jagan Mohan
Rao, it was held that continuous readiness and
willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a
condition precedent to grant of the relief of
specific performance. This circumstance is
material and relevant and is required to be
considered by the court while granting or
refusing to grant the relief. If the plaintiff fails
to either aver or prove the same, he must fail.
To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract, the
court must take into consideration the conduct
of the plaintiff prior to and subsequent to the
filing of the suit along with other attending
circumstances. The amount of consideration
which he has to pay to the defendant must
necessarily be proved to be available.
1 8 . In Pushparani S. Sundaram v. Pauline
Manomani James, this Court has held that
inference of readiness and willingness could
be drawn from the conduct of the plaintiff and
the totality of circumstances in a particular
case. It was held thus: (SCC p. 584, para 5).
5. ... So far these being a plea that they were
ready and willing to perform their part of the
contract is there in the pleading, we have no
hesitation to conclude, that this by itself is not
sufficient to hold that the appellants were
ready and willing in terms of Section 16(c) of
the Specific Relief Act. This requires not only
such plea but also proof of the same. Now
examining the first of the two circumstances,
h o w could mere filing of this suit, after
exemption was granted be a circumstance
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
about willingness or readiness of the plaintiff.
This at the most could be the desire of the
plaintiff to have this property. It may be for
such a desire this suit was filed raising such a
plea. But Section 16(c) of the said Act makes
it clear that mere plea is not sufficient, it has
to be proved.
19. Similar view has been taken by this Court
in Manjunath Anandappa v. Tammanasa and
Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. Gopalakrishna.
20. The judgment of this Court in Umabai v.
Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan is almost similar
to the case at hand where the plaintiff had
filed a suit for specific performance of the
agreement to re-convey property. The plea of
the plaintiff was that the transaction was one
of mortgage and the sale stood redeemed and
the plaintiff was discharged from the debt and
he was ready to pay the defendant the amount
for the property only in the alternative that the
plea of mortgage was not accepted by the
Court, would show that his readiness was
conditional. The plaintiff did not have any
income and could not raise the amount
required for repurchase of the property. In the
totality of the circumstances, it was held that
the plaintiff was not ready and willing to
perform the contract. The conditions laid for
the specific performance of the contract are in
para 30, which is as under: (SCC P. 256).
30. It is now well settled that the conduct of
the parties, with a view to arrive at a finding
as to whether the respondent- plaintiffs were
a l l along and still are ready and willing to
perform their part of contract as is
mandatorily required under Section 16(c) of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
the Specific Relief Act must be determined
having regard to the entire attending
circumstances. A bare averment in the plaint
or a statement made in the examination-in-
chief would not suffice. The conduct of the
respondent-plaintiffs must be judged having
regard to the entirety of the pleadings as also
the evidence brought on record.
15. There is a distinction between readiness to perform the contract and
willingness to perform the contract. By readiness may be meant the
capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which includes his financial
position to pay the purchase price. For determining his willingness to
perform his part of the contract, the conduct has to be properly
scrutinized. The factum of readiness and willingness to perform the
plaintiff's part of the contract is to be adjudged with reference to the
conduct of the party and the attending circumstances. The court may infer
from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was ready and was
always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The facts of
this case would amply demonstrate that the appellant /plaintiff was ready
and had the capacity to perform his part of the contract as he had a well
sound financial capacity to pay the consideration in cash as contracted
and intended to bide for the time which dis-entitles him as time is of the
essence of the contract. Appellant had also furnished details of the bank
account showing his financial condition vide Ex.P/10 to Ex.P/15 and the
trail court has also given finding that the appellant / plaintiff had sufficient
fund for purchase of the suit property.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
16. Balveer Singh (DW.1) appeared in the trial Court and stated that he
cannot hear and see properly and in para 12 of his statement he stated that
his brother and son are running his business and therefore, they are having
entire information about the facts of the case. He admitted that he has
only made signature on the agreement. Further, Gurudayal Singh (DW.2)
who is son of the defendant has stated in his statement that on 13.11.2007
after registration of lease deed, he informed the plaintiff on phone and the
information was given to the plaintiff on 17.11.2007. However, the trial
Court in para 14 of its judgment has observed that there is no mention in
the agreement so as to written information. Moreover, the defendant
could not show any document before the trial Court that he has given the
information to the plaintiff with regard to lease deed dated 13.11.2007.
Plaintiff in his statement has stated that he got information on 23.2.2008
only when the defendant sent a legal notice dated 20.2.2008 through his
Advocate by which the agreement was cancelled. The plaintiff also sent
reply to the aforesaid notice through his Advocate on 29.2.2008 and on
27.2.2008 he also got published a notice in the daily newspapers, a copy
of which is Ex.P/7 and Ex.P/8, in which also, the plaintiff has shown his
willingness and readiness to perform his part of contract. In the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case and the material and the evidence
available on record, the trial Court has decided all the issues in favour of
the plaintiff which is evident from para 20 of its judgment.
17. So far as provisions of Section 72 (g) of the Cooperative Society
Act, 1960 which clearly restrains transfer of a immovable property for a
period of seven years and Section 72 (e) of the Act makes any transfer
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
without permission is a punishable offence. Thus, the respondent -
defendant cannot execute sale deed in favour of the appellant - plaintiff for
a period of seven years as per the provisions of M.P. Cooperative
Societies Act. However, trial Court in para 17 of its judgment has
observed that such amended provisions are retrospective in nature.
Further, the Constitution of India does not permit a retrospective operation
of any given act unless there is any implication in law stating that the law
that is there has to be retrospective in nature.
18. Learned counsel for the defendant - respondent has also drawn
attention of this Court to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and
Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and in this regard also
cited judgments as mentioned above. From pleadings of the parties and
on perusal of the contents made in the agreement dated 23.7.2007
(Ex.P/1), it is clear that the defendant willfully and without any fear and
pressure entered into contract with the plaintiff for the sale of the suit
property. There is a specific clause in the agreement that the defendant
after getting lease deed in his favour and after completing all due
formalities and after obtaining full sale consideration, shall execute the sale
deed in favour of the plaintiff and shall hand over the possession thereof.
Thus, it is clear that the defendant himself has committed breach of the
contract / agreement and after getting lease deed in his favour by the
Society has not performed his part of contract and even has not given any
information in this regard to the plaintiff. Thus, the provisions of the
relevant Act relied upon by the defendant are not attracted looking to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
facts and circumstances of the present case.
19. The Supreme Court in Pandurang Ganpat Tanawade v. Ganpat
Bhairu Kadam and others (1996) 10 SCC 51 (paras 5 & 8 are
relevant) has held that if the plaintiff has proved his willingness and
readiness, he is entitled to get decree of specific performance of contract
and similar view has also been adopted in Syed Dastagir v. T. R.
Gopalakrishna Setty (1999) 6 SCC 337 (paras 9 to 13 are relevant).
20. The Apex court in a recent judgment rendered in Sughar Singh
v. Hari Singh (dead) Thr. LRs. and others, AIR 2021 SC 5581 has
clearly held that Section 20 of Relief of specific performance is no longer
a discretionary relief and Section 10 (a) though may not be applicable
retrospective but can be guide on discretionary relief.
21. In view of the statements of the plaintiff and defendant as well
as his legal heirs and the averments contained in the plaint, the appellant -
plaintiff has not only averred but has also proved that he was ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract under the agreement for sale.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff -
appellant has successfully established his case.
22. Ex Consequenti, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and
decree dated 29.7.2011 passed in RCS No.274-A/2008 by Fourth
Additional Judge to the Court of Tenth Additional District Judge (Fast
Track), Bhopal is hereby set-aside. The suit filed by the appellant - plaintiff
deserves to be and is hereby decreed subject to payment of remaining sale
consideration to the respondents / legal heirs of the defendant before the
trial Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
certified copy of this order and upon making other expenses as per the
agreement vide Ex.P/1 dated 23.7.2007, they shall execute the sale deed in
respect of the suit land / property in favour of the plaintiff / appellant
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the remaining sale
consideration. The appellant / plaintiff shall also pay stamp duty of
conveyance deed as per present collector guidelines existing today.
23. Parties to bear their own costs. Registry is directed to draw a
decree accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
JUDGE
JP
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 4/25/2023
5:40:41 PM
