Madhya Pradesh High Court
Iqbal Khan S/O Kalaam Khan vs Sabir Ansari S/O Mohammad Hussain, on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30524
1 S.A. No.1598/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
SECOND APPEAL No. 1598 of 2025
IQBAL KHAN S/O KALAAM KHAN
Versus
SABIR ANSARI S/O MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN, AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - Government Advocate for
the respondent No.2/ State.
Reserved on : 24/09/2025
Delivered on : 16/10/2025
============================================
JUDGMENT
Heard on the question of admission.
This appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C has been
preferred by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the
judgment and decree dated 24/04/2025 passed in RCA
No.26 of 2024 by Principal District Judge, Shajapur
whereby the learned First Appellate Court setting-aside the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30524
judgment and decree dated 23/04/2024 passed in RCS
No.79 of 2022 by IV Civil Judge, Senior Division, District-
Shajapur and granted specific performance of a sale
agreement in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the suit property is
land situated at Gram Lakhman Khedi, Tehsil & District
Shajapur, at Survey No.492/min-01/min-01, area 0.64
hectares. The appellant (Iqbal Khan) owned this land and
had previously sold one portion to Ahad Khan on
11/10/2018. On 18/10/2019, the appellant entered into an
agreement to sell out 0.626 hectares of the land to the
plaintiff (Sabir Ansari) for Rs.3,20,000/-. The plaintiff paid
Rs.1,00,000/- as advance at the time of agreement and
plaintiff claims that he had paid two additional payments of
Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- later on. The terms of the
agreement at Clause 7 specified that the balance
consideration had to be paid on or before 15/04/2021. The
plaintiff alleged that he requested for execution of the sale-
deed but the defendant refused to do so and thereafter the
plaintiff issued a registered legal notice on 01/06/2022. The
defendant denied liability claiming that the plaintiff
defaulted the payment, therefore, the agreement
automatically lapsed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30524
3. Trial Court partly allowed the suit and held that the
plaintiff proved the agreement, payments and the plaintiff
was ready and willing to perform the sale agreement but
since the agreement was unregistered, the Trial Court
refused the specific performance of the said agreement and
directed appellant/defendant to refund of Rs.1,15,000/-
(advance money) with 6% per annum interest to the
respondent No.1/plaintiff.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, appellant/defendant
preferred the appeal before the learned First Appellate Court
whereby the learned First Appellate Court had reversed the
decree of Trial Court and allowed the specific performance
of the contract and directed appellant/defendant (Iqbal
Khan) to execute a registered sale-deed in favor of the
respondent No.1/plaintiff within a period of 2 months after
receiving the balance consideration of Rs.2,05,000/-. Being
aggrieved, the present appellant/defendant (Iqbal Khan)
challenged the judgment and decree of the learned First
Appellate Court before this Court by filing the present
Second Appeal.
5. The grounds which are raised by the present appellant
in this appeal is that the learned First Appellate Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30524
committed error of law by allowing the First Appeal
whereby setting-aside the judgment and decree of the
learned Trial Court. The learned First Appellate Court did
not properly consider the evidence and documents produced
by the defendant, particularly the public notice (Exhibit
D/1) which declared the agreement cancelled. It has been
further contended that time was the essence of the Contract
and Clause 7 of the agreement required payment of balance
consideration by 15/04/2020. Since plaintiff failed to pay
the amount by that due date, hence the contract was lapsed.
He further contended that the learned First Appellate Court
wrongly ignored the decisions of Apex Court the held in the
matter of T.D. Vivek Kumar v. Ranbir Chaudhary (2023
SCC Online SC 526), wherein the Apex Court held that if
the purchaser fails to pay the balance amount within the
stipulated time, thus, the advance paid may be forfeited. It
has been contended that the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and
PW-3 contained contradictions with admissions that the
agreement had come to an end. It was thus contended that
the learned First Appellate Court ignored these admissions.
It has been further contended that Agreement has two cut-
off dates i.e 15/04/2020 and 15/04/2021 and thus it was
asserted that respondent No.1/plaintiff issued notice to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30524
appellant/defendant dated 01/06/2022, which was after a
lapse of more than one year. It has been also contended that
this delay shows lack of readiness and willingness on behalf
of the respondent No.1/plaintiff.
6. It has been contended that the plaintiff failed to prove
financial capacity to pay balance consideration of
Rs.2,05,000/-. It has been contended that the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the matter of Ritu Saxena v. D.J.S. Grover (2019)
9 SCC 132 held that readiness must be proved through
financial documents like bank statements etc., which were
absent here. It is further contended that time is the essence
in sale of immovable property. It has been asserted that even
if time is not expressly essence, Courts can infer reasonable
time. It was also asserted that plaintiff failed to act within
reasonable time, so relief should not be granted. The learned
First Appellate Court failed to consider that the agreement
was unregistered, as such documents require registration
under law. It has been further asserted that the appellant has
already complied with the Trial Court decree by depositing
Rs.1,15,000 + Rs.12,650 (interest) = Rs.1,27,650 in Court
on 11/05/2024 which shows bona fides on the part of the
appellant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30524
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant
proposed the following substantial questions of Law :-
"a) Whether time was the essence of the
contract in the given facts and
circumstances?
b) Whether the plaintiff was truly ready
and willing to perform his part, including
payment of balance consideration?
c). Whether an unregistered document
affecting immovable property is admissible
or enforceable without registration?"
8. The appellant/defendant prayed the following reliefs
in the present Second Appeal :-
"a) The impugned judgment and decree
dated 24/04/2025 of the Principal District
Judge, Shajapur, in RCA No.26/2024 be set
aside.
b) Consequently, the plaintiff's original
suit RCS-A/79/2022 be dismissed.
c) Any other relief deemed fit in the
interest of justice be granted."
Analysis and conclusion :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30524
9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/defendant at
length and perused the entire records.
10. On going through the entire records and the
submissions made by learned counsel for the
appellant/defendant, this Court is of the considered view
that the learned First Appellate Court was justified in
coming to the conclusion that the impugned sale agreement
(Exhibit P/2) dated 18/10/2019 was executed between the
respondent No.1/plaintiff and appellant/defendant. It is also
rightly observed by the learned First Appellate Court that
the respondent No.1/plaintiff was ready and willing to
perform the contract. However, the Trial Court wrongly
denied specific performance solely because the agreement
was unregistered, considering it inadmissible. It would be
appropriate to read the proviso to Section 49 of the
Registration Act, 1908, which as follows :-
"49. Effect of non-registration of documents
required to be registered.--No document
required by section 17 or by any provision of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of
1882)], to be registered shall--
(a) affect any immovable property comprised
therein, or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30524
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction
affecting such property or conferring such
power, unless it has been registered:
[Provided that an unregistered document
affecting immovable property and required by
this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
(4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as
evidence of a contract in a suit for specific
performance under Chapter II of the Specific
Relief Act, 1877 (1 of 1877) or as evidence of
any collateral transaction not required to be
effected by registered instrument."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R Hemalatha
Vs. Kashehuri AIR 2023 SC 189, held that an unregistered
document affecting immovable property can still be
admitted, as evidence in a suit for specific performance.
Therefore, the learned First Appellate Court rightly set-
aside the Trial Court's finding on this issue and confirmed
that the finding of said sale agreement (Exhibit P-2) which
is admissible in evidence and decreed for specific
performance.
12. This Court has also confirmed the issue of Limitation
finding that the suit filed on 05/07/2022 was well within the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30524
three years limitation period prescribed under the Limitation
Act, 1963.
13. This Court has perused the Sale Agreement dated
18/10/2019 and on myopic scrutiny of the said Agreement,
it goes to show that the first cut- off date for the said
agreement comes to an end after one year from the date of
execution i.e 15/04/2020 and since the appellant/defendant
himself on 15/04/2021 extended the period of contract
therefore, the first date 15/04/2020 has lost its force and thus
the limitation if any to file a suit would always be not from
the date expired period i.e. 15/04/2020 or the date of
extension by appellant i.e. on 15/04/2021 as the extension
made by appellant on 15/04/2021 does not spell any final
cut-off date for the performance of contract. Thus, limitation
in the present case would be taken into consideration only
from the date of receipt of notice dated 01/06/2022 served
by respondent No.1/plaintiff to appellant/defendant and that
being so the respondent No.1/plaintiff have filed the suit
within limitation. Even if the limitation were to be
calculated from the date of a public notice issued by the
appellant/defendant on 21/04/2020 (Exhibit D-1), the suit
would still fall within the permissible period of limitation. It
would be apt here to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30524
Apex Court in the matter of P. Daivasigamani Vs. S.
Sambandan, (2022) 14 SCC 793, wherein the Apex
Court held that mere delay alone in filing the suit for
specific performance without reference to the conduct of the
respondent/plaintiff could not be a ground for refusing the
said relief, when the suit was filed within the statutory time-
limit by the respondent/plaintiff.
14. This Court is also noted that under the Specific Relief
(Amendment) Act, 2018, which came into effect before the
agreement in question, specific performance is no longer at
the Court's discretion but must be granted if legal
requirements are met. As the respondent No.1/plaintiff paid
part of the consideration (Rs.1,15,000/- out of Rs.3,20,000/)
and was ready to perform the contract and the
appellant/defendant failed to fulfill their obligation, the
respondent No.1/plaintiff was thus entitled to specific
performance.
15. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the
learned First Appellate Court further has rightly observed
that the Trial Court erred by granting a refund of earnest
money without any specific prayer. It is settled law that
under Sections 21(5) and 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act,
1963 that such relief cannot be granted unless it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30524
specifically claimed, as reinforced by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Universal Petro Chemicals Ltd. Vs.
B.P. PLC (2022) 6 SCC 157.
16. Thus, based on the pleadings and evidence placed on
record by the parties, the learned First Appellate Court has
rightly held that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has
established a valid case for specific performance. As a
result, the learned First Appellate Court rightly set-aside the
judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 23/04/2024 and
allowed the appeal. The appellant/defendant was
appropriately directed to execute a registered sale-deed for
the suit property within two months upon receiving the
balance of Rs.2,05,000 from the respondent No.1/plaintiff
and rightly held that if the appellant/defendant fails to do so,
the respondent No.1/plaintiff may initiate proceedings to get
the sale-deed registered through the Court. Also if the
respondent No.1/plaintiff fails to pay the balance within the
specified period, the learned First Appellate Court's decree
will become unenforceable.
17. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and upon
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30524
due consideration of material available on record and
considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court,
this Court does not find any illegality in the judgment and
decree of the learned First Appellate Court allowing the
appeal of the respondent No.1/plaintiff.
18. Resultantly in absence of any substantial question of
law, this Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
19. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands
disposed off accordingly.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Aiyer*
ST
