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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more