The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, upheld the dismissal of a suit filed by Gulam Ali Ismail Khan for specific performance of a land sale agreement involving property in Aurangabad. The plaintiff, who had entered into an agreement to purchase 70,000 sq. ft. of land for Rs. 21.52 crore, failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness to fulfill his part of the contract. The court found that the plaintiff did not have the necessary financial capacity and failed to perform his obligations within the stipulated six-month period. The court also declined to grant relief based on admissions from one of the defendants, noting the lack of genuine commitment to the contract. Consequently, the plaintiff's appeal was partially allowed only to the extent of refunding the earnest money with interest.

Background of the Case:

The case revolves around a 2008 agreement in which the plaintiff, Gulam Ali Ismail Khan, agreed to purchase land from the defendants for Rs. 21.52 crore. The deal was to be finalized within six months, with an initial earnest payment of Rs. 50 lakh. Disputes arose when the plaintiff discovered a prior agreement involving the same land and subsequently filed a suit for specific performance, seeking the enforcement of the contract.

Trial Court's Decision:

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, rejecting his claims for specific performance, refund of the earnest money, and compensation. The court found that the plaintiff was neither ready nor willing to fulfill his contractual obligations and lacked the financial capacity to complete the transaction.

High Court Appeal:

The plaintiff appealed the trial court's decision, but the High Court upheld the dismissal. The court emphasized that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate his financial ability to pay the remaining balance of over Rs. 21 crore and did not effectively pursue the execution of the sale deed. The court also noted discrepancies in the plaintiff's claims, including a lack of proper communication and failure to serve necessary notices to all defendants.

Judgment on Admissions:

One of the defendants, Shaikh Majidullah Shaikh Barkatullah, sided with the plaintiff, admitting to the agreement's validity. However, the court chose not to grant a partial decree based on these admissions, citing concerns over the defendant's true intentions and the overall lack of a genuine transaction.

Final Verdict:

The High Court partially allowed the appeal, only in terms of refunding the earnest money with interest. The plaintiff's failure to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his contractual duties led to the rejection of his primary claims, affirming the trial court's decision to dismiss the suit.