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

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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more