Case Note & Summary
The case involves two second appeals arising from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The plaintiff, Hiren Venilal Sevak, filed the suit against the original owner Devoo Ambo Patil and others, seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 15.06.2005 for sale of land at Village Nandgaon, Taluka Dahanu, District Palghar. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The appellants, including legal representatives of Devoo Ambo Patil and a subsequent purchaser M/s Harmony Lifestyle Structures Private Limited, challenged the concurrent findings. The High Court examined the substantial questions of law framed, including whether the agreement was valid, whether the plaintiff was ready and willing, whether the suit was within limitation, and whether the power of attorney required registration. The court held that the plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness by depositing the balance consideration and filing the suit within time. The agreement was validly executed, and the defendants failed to prove fraud. The power of attorney, though unregistered, did not affect the validity of the agreement. The suit was within limitation as the date fixed for performance was 30.06.2006 and the suit was filed on 29.06.2009. The court also rejected the claim of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Consequently, both second appeals were dismissed, and the decree for specific performance was upheld.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) - The plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The court held that the plaintiff's conduct in depositing the balance consideration and filing the suit within limitation demonstrated readiness and willingness. (Paras 20-25)
B) Contract Act - Agreement to Sell - Validity - The agreement to sell dated 15.06.2005 was held to be valid and binding, and the defendants failed to prove that the signatures were obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. (Paras 15-19)
C) Power of Attorney - Registration - Section 32 Registration Act - A power of attorney executed in respect of an interest in immovable property requires registration. However, the court held that the agreement to sell itself was valid and the power of attorney was not necessary for the transaction. (Paras 26-30)
D) Limitation Act - Suit for Specific Performance - Article 54 - The suit was filed within three years from the date fixed for performance (30.06.2006) and was thus within limitation. (Paras 31-35)
E) Transfer of Property Act - Part Performance - Section 53A - The defendants could not claim protection under Section 53A as they failed to prove that they were in possession in part performance of the contract. (Paras 36-40)
F) Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 - The court held that no substantial question of law arose as the findings of fact were concurrent and not perverse. (Paras 41-45)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants have made out any substantial question of law to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below decreeing the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell.
Final Decision
Both second appeals are dismissed. The decree for specific performance passed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court is upheld. No order as to costs. Pending interim applications are disposed of.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- power of attorney
- registration
- limitation
- adverse possession
- part performance
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- Section 53A Transfer of Property Act
- Order 41 Rule 22 CPC
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (04) 82
Second Appeal No.350 of 2022 with Interim Application No.2526 of 2022 and Second Appeal No.353 of 2022 with Interim Application No.17807 of 2023
Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandesh D. Patil and Ms. Anusha P. Amin i/b. Mr. Chintan Shah for the Appellant in SA/350/2022; Mr. Ranjit Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pradeep Thorat, Mr. D.Y. Chitnis, Mr. Abhilesh Chitre, Ms Sonali Dalvi, Mr. Rehan G & S.P. Singh i/b. M/s. Deepak Chitnis Chiparikar and Co. for the Appellants in SA/353/2022; Mr. Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sukand Kulkarni and Mr. Amit Shaligram i/b. Mr. Govind B. Solanke for the Respondents.
Devoo Ambo Patil (since deceased) through its legal representatives and others; M/s Harmony Lifestyle Structures Private Limited
Hiren Venilal Sevak and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land.
Remedy Sought
The plaintiff sought specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.06.2005, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed and deliver possession of the suit property.
Filing Reason
The defendants failed to execute the sale deed despite receiving part consideration and the plaintiff being ready and willing to perform his part.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit on 31.08.2018, and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal on 28.01.2022, confirming the decree.
Issues
Whether the agreement to sell dated 15.06.2005 is valid and binding?
Whether the plaintiff has proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract?
Whether the suit is within limitation?
Whether the power of attorney executed in favour of the plaintiff required registration?
Whether the defendants have made out any substantial question of law for interference in second appeal?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the agreement was not validly executed, signatures were obtained by fraud, and the plaintiff was not ready and willing.
Appellants also contended that the power of attorney was unregistered and thus invalid, and the suit was barred by limitation.
Respondent argued that the agreement was valid, consideration was paid, and the plaintiff was always ready and willing, and the suit was within limitation.
Ratio Decidendi
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The court must examine the conduct of the plaintiff from the date of the agreement till the date of the decree. The agreement to sell is valid even if the power of attorney is unregistered, as the agreement itself does not require registration. The suit for specific performance must be filed within three years from the date fixed for performance.
Judgment Excerpts
The plaintiff has proved his readiness and willingness by depositing the balance consideration in court and filing the suit within limitation.
The agreement to sell is valid and binding, and the defendants have failed to prove that the signatures were obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.
The power of attorney, though unregistered, does not affect the validity of the agreement to sell.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 3 of 2010 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Palghar, which was decreed on 31.08.2018. The defendants filed Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2019, which was dismissed by the District Judge, Palghar on 28.01.2022. Aggrieved, the defendants filed the present second appeals under Section 100 of CPC.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 53A
- Limitation Act, 1963: Article 54
- Registration Act, 1908: Section 32
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100, Order 41 Rule 22
