Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the original defendant (appellants) against the judgment and decree passed in First Appeal No. 260/2014 by the Ad-Hoc District Judge-7, Nagpur, dated 21/04/2016, which dismissed the appeal with costs. The plaintiff (respondent No. 1) had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land bearing S. No.72/1, P.H.No.4 at Mahuli, Tah-Parsheoni, Dist-Nagpur. The agreement was dated 09/10/2005 for a total consideration of Rs.5,51,000/-. An initial amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid by cheque dated 10/10/2005, and further installments totaling Rs.1,75,000/- were paid, acknowledged by the defendant. The defendant failed to get the land measured and obtain necessary certificates, and did not execute the sale deed despite a registered notice dated 16/12/2006. The defendant denied the agreement in his written statement. The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance, which was confirmed by the first appellate court. The High Court framed a substantial question of law: whether the discretion to grant specific performance was rightly exercised. The Court examined the evidence, including the agreement, payment receipts, and the plaintiff's testimony, and found that the plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness. The defendant's denial was not supported by credible evidence. The Court held that the discretion was properly exercised and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief - Specific Performance - Discretion of Court - Section 20 Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The substantial question of law framed was whether the discretion to grant specific performance was rightly exercised. The Court held that the discretion was properly exercised based on evidence of payment and readiness, and no interference was warranted (Paras 3, 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the discretion to grant the relief of specific performance has been rightly exercised by the Courts in light of the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that the discretion to grant specific performance was rightly exercised by the courts below. No interference was warranted.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- discretion of court
- substantial question of law
- Section 20 Specific Relief Act
- 1963
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (12) 153
Second Appeal No. 228/2018
Shri A. Shelat for appellants, Shri R.R. Srivastava for respondent No. 1, Shri Gopal Sawal for respondent No. 2
Chandrakala Wd/o Ashok Kusumbe, Shri Akhil S/o Ashok Kusumbe, Amruta D/o Ashok Kusumbe (L.Rs. of deceased original defendant Ashok S/o Daulatrao Kusumbe)
Dr. Saurabh S/o Rajendra Agrawal (original plaintiff), Shri Mahipal S/o Shri Nathurao Choukse
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent findings in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (original defendants) sought to set aside the decree for specific performance granted by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court.
Filing Reason
The appellants were aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in First Appeal No. 260/2014 by the Ad-Hoc District Judge-7, Nagpur, dated 21/04/2016, which dismissed their appeal with costs.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance; the first appellate court dismissed the appeal, confirming the decree.
Issues
Whether the discretion to grant the relief of specific performance has been rightly exercised by the Courts in light of the evidence on record.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the discretion to grant specific performance was not properly exercised.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that the discretion was correctly exercised.
Ratio Decidendi
The discretion to grant specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is to be exercised judicially based on evidence. In this case, the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness, and the defendant failed to rebut the evidence. Therefore, the concurrent findings of fact and the exercise of discretion were proper and not perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
In the light of the evidence on record, whether the discretion to grant the relief of specific performance has been rightly exercised by the Courts?
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 09/10/2005. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendant appealed to the first appellate court (First Appeal No. 260/2014), which dismissed the appeal on 21/04/2016. The defendant then filed the present second appeal (Second Appeal No. 228/2018) in the High Court, which was dismissed on 08/12/2023.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 20
