Case Note & Summary
The case involves a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement for sale of a suit block admeasuring 110 square feet. The plaintiff, Sudhir Gulabrao Malode, and the defendant, Sunil Ramchandra Mahajan, were both practicing advocates and close friends. On 27th November 1991, the defendant allegedly entered into an oral agreement to sell the suit block to the plaintiff for Rs.70,000/-. The plaintiff was put in possession on 28th November 1991 and has been using it as his office. The plaintiff claimed to have paid the entire consideration in installments, partly by cheque and partly by cash, with the last payment on 22nd March 1998. The plaintiff also spent Rs.45,000/- on renovations. The defendant later refused to execute the sale deed, leading to the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed it. The High Court, in second appeal, upheld the decree, finding that the plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness, and the suit was within limitation. The court noted that the defendant's refusal to execute the sale deed occurred only after the plaintiff demanded execution, and the suit was filed within three years of such refusal. The court also found that the plaintiff's possession was in part performance of the agreement, and the defendant's conduct in accepting installments and granting telephone extension supported the plaintiff's case. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Oral Agreement - Part Performance - Sections 16(c) and 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The plaintiff sought specific performance of an oral agreement for sale of a suit block, claiming payment of full consideration and possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court decreed it. The High Court upheld the decree, finding that the plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness and that the suit was within limitation. (Paras 1-17)
B) Limitation - Suit for Specific Performance - Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit was filed within three years from the date of refusal by the defendant, as the plaintiff continued to pay installments and the defendant acknowledged receipt. The High Court held that the suit was not barred by limitation. (Paras 10-12)
C) Evidence - Oral Agreement - Proof - The plaintiff's evidence of oral agreement, payment of consideration, and possession was corroborated by witnesses and documents. The High Court found no perversity in the findings of the first appellate court. (Paras 13-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of an oral agreement for sale based on part performance and payment of consideration, and whether the suit is barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, which decreed the suit for specific performance. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- oral agreement
- part performance
- Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- limitation
- readiness and willingness
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (04) 103
Second Appeal No. 217 of 2015
Shri Anand Jaiswal, Senior Advocate h/f Shri Rohit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant; Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the respondent no.1.
Sunil S/o Ramchandra Mahajan
Sudhir S/o Gulabrao Malode
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for specific performance of an oral agreement for sale of immovable property.
Remedy Sought
Decree for specific performance of the oral agreement for sale of suit block, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff.
Filing Reason
Defendant refused to execute the sale deed despite receiving full consideration and plaintiff being in possession.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court dismissed the suit on 20th April 2010; First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit on 17th October 2014.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff proved the oral agreement for sale and payment of full consideration?
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?
Whether the suit was barred by limitation?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the oral agreement was not proved, the suit was barred by limitation, and the plaintiff was not ready and willing.
Respondent argued that the oral agreement was proved by evidence, the suit was within limitation, and the plaintiff had always been ready and willing.
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff proved the oral agreement for sale, payment of full consideration, and possession in part performance. The suit was within limitation as the cause of action arose when the defendant refused to execute the sale deed, and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part. The first appellate court's findings were based on evidence and not perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 17th October, 2014, passed by the Adhoc-District Judge-3, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 343 of 2010, allowing the appeal and thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20th April, 2010 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 1234 of 2004 (New Special Civil Suit No. 905 of 2007), dismissing the suit for specific performance.
The plaintiff contended that the defendant agreed upon to accept consideration amount in installments. Plaintiff paid him first five installments by cheque each of Rs.5,000/-. Thereafter for 17 times and in piece meal the plaintiff paid balance consideration amount to the defendant by cash.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1234 of 2004 (New Special Civil Suit No. 905 of 2007) for specific performance. The trial court dismissed the suit on 20th April 2010. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court, which allowed the appeal and decreed the suit on 17th October 2014. The defendant then filed the present second appeal in the High Court, which was dismissed on 20th April 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: 16(c), 20
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: 53A
- Limitation Act, 1963: Article 54
