The court held that where the plaintiff proves readiness and willingness for specific performance and the defendant unjustifiably refuses, specific performance may be decreed along with an additional payment accounting for increased property value during prolonged litigation. Upholds and applies settled Supreme Court precedent; binding on lower courts in civil matters involving specific performance disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/121/2018 of RAKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs VIKRAM KUMAR SAHU |
| CNR | CGHC010060272018 |
| Date of Registration | 22-02-2018 |
| Decision Date | 03-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RAJANI DUBEY (concurring) |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench (HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RAJANI DUBEY, HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and applies Supreme Court judgments |
| Type of Law | Specific Performance (Civil Law) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The appellate court held that once the plaintiff proves readiness and willingness under Sections 16(c) and 20 of the Specific Relief Act, specific performance can be decreed even if the property value has increased substantially during litigation. The court may, in its discretion and in the interest of justice, direct an additional payment to the defendant. Defenses of joint family property or alleged business motives unsupported by credible evidence do not bar relief. Upholds established jurisprudence that specific performance is an equitable, discretionary remedy, not a matter of right, but to be applied when fairness demands, subject to conditions ensuring justice to both parties. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Applied the statutory requirements per Sections 16(c), 20, 21, 22, 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and parameters from Supreme Court judgments relating to readiness/willingness, discretion, and equitable relief. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Plaintiff and defendant entered into a registered agreement to sale in 2012 for specific property, with full sale consideration paid on execution. Defendant promised to execute sale deed after property diversion but delayed/failed to do so, raising post-hoc defenses about joint ownership and alleged business motive. Plaintiff repeatedly demonstrated readiness and willingness, including legal notice; defendant refused sale deed. Trial Court dismissed specific performance but directed refund with interest. Defendant’s allegations of fraud/jointness found untenable. During pendency, value of property increased. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate civil courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and trial courts in India (regarding procedure in granting specific performance in equity) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Courts possess discretion, even at the appellate stage, to order specific performance along with an additional payment reflecting increased property value accrued during pendency, to balance equities.
- Mere plea of joint family property or that purchaser is a property dealer does not suffice to defeat a decree for specific performance when not proven by reliable evidence.
- A defendant’s post-facto excuses/defenses, not raised in reply to notice or supported by contemporaneous documents, may be rejected when readiness/willingness and contract terms are clear.
- Plaintiff’s claim for specific performance may still succeed if the contractual consideration has been fully paid and continued readiness is established, even if trial court denied such relief but ordered refund.
- Lawyers should document client readiness and willingness (e.g., notices, offers, payments) meticulously, as courts examine these factors stringently.
- Courts may impose conditions (e.g., additional payment) on grant of specific performance in exceptional cases where property values have changed drastically due to passage of time during litigation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court first found that the execution of the agreement to sell, and the complete payment of the sale consideration by the plaintiff, were undisputed.
- The defense that the property was joint family in nature was rejected since the defendant was the recorded owner in revenue records and no credible steps for partition or assertion of other claims had been taken.
- The reasoning of the trial court regarding the plaintiff’s purported violation of contract (alleged use for property dealing/business etc.) was not supported by any evidence.
- The court emphasized the statutory requirements per the Specific Relief Act: existence of a valid contract, readiness/willingness by the plaintiff, performance of reciprocal obligations, and the equitable nature of the remedy.
- Relying on Kamal Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 709, the court outlined the parameters: specific performance is discretionary and subject to equitable considerations.
- Readiness and willingness of plaintiff was established by legal notice and evidenced intent; defendant’s conduct revealed shifting defense and want of good faith.
- Applying Basavaraj v. Padmavathi (2023) 4 SCC 239, the court reasoned that, in cases where there is a significant increase in value over prolonged litigation, additional compensation may be ordered to do complete justice.
- The court awarded specific performance subject to the plaintiff depositing additional Rs.10,00,000 within a fixed time, failing which only refund of earnest money would be available.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Defendant admitted execution of agreement to sale and receipt of full sale consideration.
- Plaintiff continuously demonstrated readiness and willingness; issued notice and made proposals to complete the sale deed.
- Defendant’s excuses for non-execution, including allegations about business motive or violations of contract conditions, not substantiated by evidence.
- Relief of specific performance should be granted, relying on P. Ramasubbamma v. V. Vijaylakshmi (2022) 7 SCC 384.
Respondent
- Defendant argued that plaintiff was a property dealer and not intending to use land for personal residential purpose, violating the terms of agreement.
- Defended trial court’s order as based on proper appreciation of evidence.
- Cited that specific performance is discretionary; refund granted by trial court was adequate.
- Referred to existing decisions of High Court to support non-grant of specific performance.
Factual Background
The dispute arose over a registered agreement to sell entered on 29.03.2012 between the plaintiff and defendant for property at Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. Full sale consideration was paid by plaintiff at execution. Defendant undertook to execute sale deed post-diversion of property but failed to do so for over two years, despite repeated requests and a registered legal notice. Defendant shifted defenses—including allegations of fraud, joint family ownership, and breach of user condition—during litigation. The trial court dismissed the claim for specific performance but ordered refund of sale consideration with interest. The appeal was filed by the plaintiff challenging this denial of specific performance.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 16(c), 20, 21, 22, and 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 were discussed.
- The court reaffirmed that specific performance is not a matter of right but a discretionary equitable remedy; discretion must be exercised judicially based on statutory prerequisites: valid contract, plaintiff’s readiness and willingness, proper conduct, and absence of unfair advantage.
- The court referred to Form Nos. 47/48 of Appendices A to C of the Code of Civil Procedure in context of pleading requirements.
- No constitutional provisions or “reading down” applied.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Both judges (HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RAJANI DUBEY, HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT) were in agreement; the judgment was unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
- Direction issued by appellate court for deposit of additional payment as a precondition for specific performance, using its equitable jurisdiction.
- Court set a time-bound compliance mechanism: specific performance subject to deposit within two months, with refund as alternative relief if not complied.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed: The judgment affirms existing Supreme Court precedent and applies settled principles regarding specific performance under the Specific Relief Act.
Citations
- P. Ramasubbamma Vs. V. Vijaylakshmi and Others, (2022) 7 SCC 384
- Kamal Kumar Vs. Premlata Joshi and others, (2019) 3 SCC 709
- Basavaraj v. Padmavathi and Anr., (2023) 4 SCC 239