Skip to main content

Mere delay by itself cannot be the sole factum to deny specific performance

Cause Title : Dhansukhlal Rambhai Patel vs Dhansukhlal Nagindas Kapadia, R/Second Appeal No. 42 Of 1990, High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad

Date of Judgment/Order : 26/08/2022

Corum : Honourable Dr. Justice A. P. Thaker

Citied: K. Narendra V. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd. reported in (1999) 5 SCC 77

Background

The plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of the contract against the defendants. The main defense of the defendants is regarding execution of such document under misrepresentation or fraud committed by the plaintiff taking undue advantage of the weak eye sight of the respondent no.1. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence, the First Appellate Court has set aside the impugned judgment of the Trial Court and has passed the decree of specific performance of contract.

Judgment

The High Court observed that the First Appellate Court has properly appreciated the entire evidence on record and its order also reveals that when the Trial Court has accepted the version of the plaintiff regarding execution of the agreement to sell by the defendants, then, as a consequence, thereof, the decree of specific performance needs to be passed, in view of the amended section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. Of course prior to the amendment of Section 20, the grant of relief of specific performance was discretionary one.

Deciding against the Appellant and referring to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. Narendra V. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd. reported in (1999) 5 SCC 77, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the proposition in para 29 thereof regarding section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the High Court held that in the present case, the appellant has neither pleaded hardship nor produced any evidence to show that it will be inequitable to order specific performance of the agreement. The only plea raised by the defendant-appellant is regarding execution of the agreement to sell by fraud or misrepresentation and/ or taking undue advantage of the weak eye sight of the defendant no.1. Thus, even under the amended section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the discretionary relief of granting specific performance of the contract needs to be passed against the defendant no.1. Moreover, it is also well settled law that mere delay by itself, without more, cannot be the sole factum to deny specific performance.

Considering the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court, it is crystal clear that the First Appellate Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned decree of specific performance of a contract against the defendant-appellant.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more