Case Note & Summary
The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a Banakhat (agreement to sell) dated 25.01.1995 executed by the defendant in respect of suit property bearing Survey No. 234/A at Village Narol, Ahmedabad. The plaintiff claimed that the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.3,60,000/- and paid via cheques, and that possession was handed over along with a Power of Attorney in favor of Rupeshben Amrutlal Patel. Despite requests, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, leading to a joint meeting on 04.04.2010 and subsequent filing of the suit in 2010. The trial court framed issues and answered issue No.1 (execution of agreement) in the affirmative, but issue No.2 (possession) and issue No.3 (readiness and willingness) in the negative, and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed under Section 96 CPC. The High Court, after hearing the appellant's counsel, noted that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence. The plaintiff failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit property and also failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The court found no perversity in the trial court's findings and dismissed the appeal, confirming the dismissal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance of Contract - Banakhat - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and also failed to prove possession of the suit property. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure Code - First Appeal - Section 96 CPC - Scope of interference in first appeal against dismissal of suit. The court held that the trial court's findings on issues of fact, if based on proper appreciation of evidence, should not be interfered with unless perverse. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance of the Banakhat dated 25.01.1995 and whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the trial court's judgment and decree dated 15.02.2025 in Civil Suit No.800 of 2010, thereby upholding the dismissal of the suit for specific performance.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Banakhat
- Possession
- Readiness and willingness
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 96 CPC
Case Details
R/First Appeal No. 2416 of 2025
MR JA ADESHRA(107) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
LHS of Deceased Patel Rambhai Atmaram & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
First appeal against dismissal of suit for specific performance of a Banakhat (agreement to sell) and permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
The appellant-plaintiff sought a decree of specific performance of the Banakhat dated 25.01.1995 and permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with possession.
Filing Reason
The defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite payment of consideration and handing over possession, leading to the filing of the suit.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (City Civil Court, Ahmedabad) dismissed the suit on 15.02.2025, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove possession and readiness and willingness to perform.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff proved that he was in possession of the suit property pursuant to the Banakhat?
Whether the plaintiff proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the Banakhat was executed, consideration was paid, and possession was handed over, and the trial court erred in dismissing the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove not only the execution of the agreement but also his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and possession of the suit property. Failure to prove these essential elements results in dismissal of the suit.
Judgment Excerpts
The present appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, Court No.16, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad dated 15.02.2025 in Civil Suit No.800 of 2010, whereby the suit filed by the present appellant under the Specific Relief Act came to be dismissed.
The learned Trial Court, while adjudicating the suit, has framed the following issues and answered accordingly.
Procedural History
The appellant-plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.800 of 2010 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad seeking specific performance of a Banakhat dated 25.01.1995 and permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit on 15.02.2025. The plaintiff then filed the present First Appeal No.2416 of 2025 under Section 96 CPC before the High Court of Gujarat, which was dismissed on 23.02.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 96
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
