Bombay High Court Upholds Specific Performance Decree in Property Sale Agreement Case — Discretion Properly Exercised Based on Evidence of Readiness and Willingness. The court confirmed the decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 6/2/1980 for consideration of Rs.18,000/- with part payment of Rs.8,000/-.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a second appeal arising from a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 6/2/1980. The suit property, Municipal House No.819 in Solapur, admeasuring 29 sq. yards, was agreed to be sold by the defendants (appellants) to the plaintiffs (respondents) for Rs.18,000/-. An amount of Rs.8,000/- was paid as part consideration at the time of the agreement. The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.713 of 1980 seeking specific performance, which was decreed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur on 21/3/1987. The defendants' appeal (Civil Appeal No.390 of 1987) was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Solapur on 8/3/1991. The defendants then filed this second appeal. The High Court framed the substantial question of law: whether the discretion to decree specific performance has been properly exercised. The court noted that the plaintiffs had paid part consideration and were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The defendants failed to execute the sale deed. The High Court found no perversity in the findings of the courts below and held that the discretion was properly exercised. The second appeal was dismissed, confirming the decree for specific performance.

Headnote

A) Specific Performance - Discretion of Court - Readiness and Willingness - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 20 - The court examined whether the trial and appellate courts properly exercised their discretion in decreeing specific performance of an agreement for sale. The plaintiff had paid part consideration and was ready to pay the balance. The defendants failed to execute the sale deed. The High Court held that the discretion was properly exercised based on evidence of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness, and no interference was warranted. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the discretion to decree specific performance has been properly exercised by the courts below.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Second appeal dismissed; decree for specific performance confirmed.

Law Points

  • Specific performance
  • discretion of court
  • readiness and willingness
  • agreement for sale
  • part payment
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (12) 130

Second Appeal No.569 of 1991

2005-12-23

B.H. Marlapalle

2005:BHC-AS:24191

Mr. Girish S. Godbole for appellants, Mr. A.P. Kulkarni h/f Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni for respondents

Mahiboobsaheb Kujruksaheb Harkare and others

Yakubsaheb Saifansaheb Qureshi and another

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Second appeal against decree for specific performance of agreement for sale.

Remedy Sought

Appellants (original defendants) sought to set aside the decree for specific performance.

Filing Reason

Appellants challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court decreeing specific performance.

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed specific performance on 21/3/1987; first appellate court dismissed appeal on 8/3/1991.

Issues

Whether the discretion to decree specific performance has been properly exercised by the courts below.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the discretion to decree specific performance was not properly exercised. Respondents argued that they were ready and willing to perform and had paid part consideration.

Ratio Decidendi

The discretion to decree specific performance was properly exercised as the plaintiff had paid part consideration and was ready and willing to perform the contract, and the defendants failed to execute the sale deed.

Judgment Excerpts

Whether the discretion to decree specific performance has been properly exercised. Admittedly the suit property ... was agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs by the defendants ... vide the agreement for sale dated 6/2/1980 ... for consideration of Rs.18,000/- and an amount of Rs.8,000/- from the said consideration was already paid to the defendants when the agreement was signed.

Procedural History

Regular Civil Suit No.713 of 1980 filed by plaintiffs for specific performance decreed on 21/3/1987 by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur. Civil Appeal No.390 of 1987 filed by defendants dismissed on 8/3/1991 by Additional District Judge, Solapur. Second Appeal No.569 of 1991 filed by defendants in High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 20
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Specific Performance Decree in Property Sale Agreement Case — Discretion Properly Exercised Based on Evidence of Readiness and Willingness. The court confirmed the decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale d...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Daughter's Murder Case Due to Lack of Credible Evidence. Conviction under Section 302 IPC for smothering a child set aside as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.