Ramavtar Goyanka S/o Late Kanhaiyalal Goyanka Aged About 54 Years R/o Nandan Vihar Colony v. 1 - Juggilal Agrawal
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:47442-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR First Appeal No. 179 of 2013 Ramavtar Goyanka S/o Late Kanhaiyalal Goyanka Aged About 54 Years R/o Nandan Vihar Colony, In Front Of Minocha Colony, Mungeli Road, P.S. Civil Lines, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh … Appellant/Plaintiff versus 1 - Juggilal Agrawal (Died Through Lrs) S/o As Per Honble Court Order Dated 18/08/2025 1A - Ramesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Juggilal Agrawal R/o Shanti Nagar, Gali No.4, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 1B - Vindo Kumar Agrawal (Babbla) S/o Late Shri Juggilal Agrawal R/o Kashyap Colony, Behind Surya Hotel, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 1C - Ashish Agrawal S/o Late Shri Juggial Agrawal R/o Parijat Extension, Near Dr. Saraf Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 1D - Sudha Agrawal D/o Late Shri Juggilal Agrawal C/o Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, C/o Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, R/o Shanti Nagar, Gali No.4, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
1E - Deepak Kumar Agrawal @ Deepu S/o Late Shri Juggilal Agrawal C/o Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, R/o Shanti Nagar, Gali No.4, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur ,chhattisgarh 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Thru- The Collector, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents/Defendents For Appellant :Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 :Mr. Swayam Tehenguriya, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 :Mr. Sharad Mishra, P.L. DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board 16.09 .2025 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Appellant/plaintiff has preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of CPC impugning the legality, validity and correctness of judgment and decree dated 19/08/2013 passed by learned VIth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil 3 Suit No. 71-A/2013 by which plaintiff’s suit for specific performance of contract has been dismissed and in alternative, decree for refund of sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest of 6% per annum has been granted in his favour. (For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their status and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.) 2. Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract stating inter alia that on 18/12/2007 (Ex. P/1), defendant No. 1 executed agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiff with regard to suit land bearing Khasra No. 661/44 area 0.040 hectare, 4284 sq. ft. situated at Juna Bilaspur for a sale consideration of Rs. 29,01,000/- out of which Rs. 5,00,000/- were paid by the plaintiff as advance amount and it was agreed that within 90 days, the plaintiff will pay the rest of the consideration amount and defendant No. 1 will get the sale deed executed in his favour. Thereafter, on 19/12/2007, plaintiff published a public notice 4 in the local newspaper to which one Gulam Jilai objected and filed his public notice in the newspaper on 17/02/2008 stating that he is in possession of 2930 sq. ft. of the suit land. Similarly, one Kamal Kishore also made his objection. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and also sent a legal notice on 13/03/2018, which was received by defendant No. 1, but he has failed to perform his part of the contract and execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, which led him to file the said civil suit. 3. Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement and opposed the plaint averments stating that Gulam Jilai has no connection with the suit land and moreover, the suit has not been filed within a period of three years, therefore, it is barred by limitation. Furthermore, plaintiff did not have the requisite sale consideration amount, as such, he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 4. Learned trial Court framed 3 issues and answered them as stated below :- 5 वाद ्ቚ् 1) अ(cid:7)ुसार ्ቚति(cid:25)वादी ्ቅमांक - 1 क्या अ(cid:7)ुबंध पा्ቔ निद(cid:7)ांक 18/12/07 के वाद्ቇस्(cid:25) भूनिम का निव्ቅय प्ቔ नि(cid:7)ष्पानिद(cid:25) कर(cid:7)े हे(cid:25)ु वादी के प्ቌ में रजामंद एवं (cid:25)ैयार है ? क्या अ(cid:7)ुबंध प्ቔ के अ(cid:7)ुसार ्ቚति(cid:25)वादी ्ቛारा 2) वाद्ቇस्(cid:25) भूनिम का निव्ቅय प्ቔ नि(cid:7)ष्पानिद(cid:25) (cid:7) निकये जा(cid:7)े की दशा में वादी ्ቚति(cid:25)वादी से ५ लाख रूपये ्ቚा् कर(cid:7)े का अतिधकारी है ? 3) सहाय(cid:25)ा एवं वाद व्यय ? नि(cid:7)ष्क्ቧ(cid:11) ्ቚमाणि((cid:25) (cid:7)हीं" " "हाँ" कं ति4का 15 " के अ(cid:7)ुसार " 5. In sum and substance, the trial Court returned a finding that though plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but defendant No. 1 was not ready and willing to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter, declined to grant decree for specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiff holding that there is dispute with regard to possession of the suit land and rather granted the decree for refund of sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with interest of 6% per annum in his favour. 6. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in declining to grant decree for specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiff after having 6 held in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, as such, the trial Court ought to have granted the decree for specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiff rather granting decree for refund of sale consideration, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 7. Mr. Swayam Tehenguriya, learned counsel for respondent/defendant No. 1, would support the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and submit that neither plaintiff was ready to perform his part of the contrary nor he was willing to pay the sale consideration amount and though plaintiff has made only empty formality by pleading in the plaint that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but he has not filed any document in support thereof demonstrating that he had the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 24,01,000/-. He could have filed his Bank account statement, etc. showing that he had sufficient money to pay the sale consideration amount. Furthermore, though notice was issued by 7 the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 on 13/03/2008 but the suit was filed as late as on 03/01/2011 i.e. almost after three years and the long delay and silence on the part of the plaintiff has not been explained which shows that plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, as such, the trial Court has rightly declined to grant decree for specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiff and the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein- above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, the short point involved for determination in this appeal is as follows :- “Whether the trial Court is justified in declining the relief of specific performance of contract to the plaintiff ?” 10. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice Section 16(c) 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter the “Act of 1963”) prior to its amendment dated 01/10/2018, which states as under :- “16. Personal bars to relief. - Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of person - (a) and (b) (c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.” 11. In order to enforce the plea of specific performance of a contract, it is incumbent on the party to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. Section 16(c) of the Act of 1963 mandates “readiness and willingness” on the part of the plaintiff and it is a condition precedent for obtaining relief of grant of specific performance. In a suit for specific performance, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove a continuous “readiness and willingness” to perform the contract on his part from the date of the contract. 12. There is a distinction between the terms 9 “readiness” and “willingness” and while both are requisites for a suit for specific performance, “readiness” means one’s capacity to perform the contract which would also include his financial position whereas “willingness” relates to the conduct of such party. For examining “readiness and willingness”, the party’s conduct prior to and subsequent to filing of the suit becomes relevant. We will discuss both the terms i.e. “readiness” and “willingness” in context of the present case one by one. “Readiness” 13. In the instant case, the plaintiff has clearly pleaded in paragraph 8 of the plaint that he was and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as he has the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 24,01,000/-. Thereafter, in his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC, he has made a similar statement that he was ready and wiling to perform his part of the contract but in the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not filed any document to demonstrate as 10 to how and from where, he will make arrangement of the balance consideration amount to make payment to defendant No. 1. Though he has stated that he had the money deposited in his bank account but he has not filed his bank account statement to show the same. 14. Similarly, though legal notice was sent by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 on 13/03/2008 (Ex. P/7) in which he has stated in paragraph 9 that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he has the balance sale consideration amount, however, in issuing the said notice, plaintiff did not direct defendant No. 1 to come to the Office of the sub-registrar for getting the sale deed executed and he has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not go to the office of the sub-registrar with the balance sale consideration amount, which shows that he was not ready with the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 24,01,000/- to perform his part of the contract. As such, plaintiff has though pleaded that he was ready to perform his part of the contract but he has failed to bring evidence on record and prove the same by showing that he was financially able and sound to make payment of the balance sale 11 consideration amount. “Willingness” 15. Admittedly, the agreement to sale was executed by plaintiff and defendant No. 1 on 18/12/2007 (Ex. P/1) and the date fixed for performance of contract by that agreement was 90 days from the date of agreement. Thereafter, plaintiff rightly sent legal notice to defendant No. 1 on 13/03/2008 (Ex. P/7) for execution of sale deed in his favour but surprisingly thereafter, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 03/01/2011 i.e. with a delay of almost three years and the said delay from 13/03/2008 to 03/01/2011 has not been explained by the plaintiff. Though the suit is said to have been filed within the period of limitation but there is a long and unexplained delay and the plaintiff has not brought any document on record to show that in the said period from 13/03/2008 to 03/01/2011, plaintiff contacted defendant No. 1 and tried to the get the sale deed executed in his favour. It is well settled that the long unexplained delay in not taking any reasonable steps, as is expected from a reasonable person, 12 is itself sufficient to disentitle the plaintiff to an equitable relief (See : U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy1). 16. At this stage, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pydi Ramana alias Ramulu v. Davarasety Manmadha Rao2 may be noticed herein profitably wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have relied upon the decision rendered in Vijay Kumar v. Om Prakash3 and held that continuous readiness and willingness is a condition precedent to grant specific relief and the steps taken by the plaintiff from the date of agreement to the date of filing suit will have to be explained and observed as under :- “19. The ratio of the above judgment in all force would be applicable to the facts on hand in the instant case. The agreement of sale (Ext. A-1) was executed on 7-6-1993 and the date fixed for execution of the sale deed was one year from the date of measurement of the suit scheduled property. Undisputedly no such measurement was carried out and the plaintiff has not raised his little finger in this regard from the date of execution of agreement till he got issued legal notice dated 30-5-1996 that is almost for a period of 3 years and suit came to be filed only on 9-6-1997 at the fag end of the