Sri Samiran Nath vs Sri Purnananda Nath

Page 1 of 8 2026:THC:1235
TRHC010005932025

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA


RSA No.09 of 2025


Sri Samiran Nath, S/O. Late Digendra Nath, of Bagbasha (Near Bagbasha
High School), P.S.-Bagbasha, North Tripura.
……… Appellant(s).

V E R S U S

Sri Purnananda Nath, S/O. Late Prahlad Chandra Nath, of Jail Road, Baidya
Tilla, Belonia, South Tripura, Presently residing at-Ichai Sonapur P.S.-

Kadamtala, Sub-Division-Dharmanagar, District-North Tripura.
……… Respondent(s).


For Appellant(s) : Ms. Saswati Nag, Advocate.




For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Advocate,
Mr. Dilwar Hushan Subha, Advocate.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO


CAV reserved on : 28.08.2026 .

Judgment delivered on : 09.09.2026.

Whether fit for reporting : NO .



JUDGMENT & ORDER


This RSA is filed challenging the judgment dt.14.02.2025 in Title
Appeal No.28 of 2023 passed by the District Judge, North Tripura,
Dharmanagar confirming the judgment dt.25.09.2023 in Title Suit No.28 of
2022 of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), North Tripura, Dharmanagar.
2. The respondent herein filed the said suit against the appellant for
specific performance of an agreement to sell dt.13.06.2018 executed by both
parties and which was also registered before the Sub-Registry Office,
Dharmanagar, North Tripura in respect of property measuring 9 sataks under
Touji No.550, Khatian No.580 in Mouja-Bagbasha, T.K.-Sanicherra, North
Tripura District.

Page 2 of 8 2026:THC:1235
TRHC010005932025

3. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs)
was paid to the appellant by the respondent on the date of execution of the
document and the agreement itself stated that the balance amount of
Rs.1,20,000/- will be paid by the respondent to the appellant within 3(three)
years from the date of execution of the said agreement.
4. It was contended by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit that on
12.06.2020 he communicated with the appellant requesting him for execution
and registration of the sale deed by receiving the balance consideration money
and stating that he was always ready and willing to pay it. According to the
respondent, the Covid-19 pandemic intervened and during that period also on
many dates, he communicated with the appellant, sometimes visiting the
appellant’s house physically and sometimes talking over telephone. According
to the respondent, the appellant assured the respondent that when pandemic
ceases and things become normal, he would himself come to the office of the
Sub-Registrar, Dharmanagar and would execute the sale deed.
5. On 15.04.2021 the respondent claims to have again
communicated with the appellant to come for execution and registration of the
sale deed by receiving the balance consideration money, but the appellant told
the respondent that he was busy with family matters and needs time.
6. Again on 05.06.2021 the respondent allegedly requested the
appellant to come for registration of the sale deed by receiving the balance
consideration, but the appellant stated that he was suffering from serious
illness and after recovery from the illness he would come to execute the sale
deed.

Page 3 of 8 2026:THC:1235
TRHC010005932025

7. Ultimately, a legal notice was got issued by the respondent on
20.06.2022, which was received by the appellant on 29.06.2022, but in spite of
the same it is alleged that the appellant did not give reply nor executed and
registered the sale deed.
8. The respondent contended in the plaint that he had always been
ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the appellant was
unwilling to cooperate with him in that regard. He, therefore, sought specific
performance of the said agreement from the trial Court.
9. The appellant filed a written statement stating that he had urgent
need for money and that was why he proposed to sell the suit schedule
property and executed the agreement to sell on 13.06.2018. The appellant
admitted that the respondent had given Rs.2 lakhs on the date of the execution
of the agreement to sell and the balance of Rs.1,20,000/- was to be given at the
time of execution of the sale deed within the stipulated period of three years
from the date of the agreement.
10. The appellant alleged that 22 months after the execution of the
agreement to sell, he communicated with the respondent and asked him to take
necessary steps for execution of the sale deed and also requested the
respondent to give the balance consideration to perform the marriage of his
elder daughter. But according to the appellant, the respondent did not give the
said money and had also taken no steps for execution of the sale deed.
11. According to the appellant, on 05.01.2021 and even subsequently
up to 12.06.2021 he was communicating with the respondent for payment of
the balance money and for execution of the sale deed, but the respondent did
not cooperate.

Page 4 of 8 2026:THC:1235
TRHC010005932025

12. He contended that he, therefore, was compelled to sell another
parcel of 6 sataks of land through a registered sale deed dt.10.01.2022 to a
third party to raise money for the marriage of his elder daughter.
13. The appellant blamed the respondent for non-execution of the
sale deed pursuant to the agreement to sell dt.13.06.2018.
14. Before the trial Court, the following issues were framed:
“i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and
nature?
ii) Whether there is cause of action for filing this suit?
iii) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his
part of the contract as per “Bainapatra” i.e. registered
agreement to sell bearing no.IV-00111, dated 13-06-2018
executed in between the plaintiff and the defendant?
iv) Whether there exists any standard for ascertaining the
actual damage caused by the non-performance of the act agreed
to be done by the defendant and whether the act agreed to be
done is such that compensation in money for its non-performance
would not afford adequate relief?
v) Whether the defendant is liable to execute and register
the sale deed in respect of the suit land specifically described in
the schedule of the plaint on receiving a balance consideration
money in favour of the plaintiff within specified time failing
which the deed is to be executed and registered according to
law?
vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief claimed for? vii) Any
other relief or relieves parties are entitled to?”



15. The respondent examined 5(five) witnesses and the appellant

examined 3(three) witnesses.

Page 5 of 8 2026:THC:1235
TRHC010005932025

The judgment of the trial Court
:
16. The trial Court held that the suit is maintainable and that it was
filed within limitation.
17. On the aspect of the respondent’s readiness and willingness to
perform his obligation under the agreement to sell, the trial Court held that the
amendment made to the Specific Relief Act in 2018 has no application.
18. It then referred to certain decisions of the Supreme Court and
held that the respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract/agreement to sell. It also held that the respondent had offered to pay
the remaining consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- to the appellant within the
stipulated period. In view of the said findings, it held that compensation in
money would not be adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case and,
therefore, the respondent was entitled to relief of specific performance of the
agreement to sell. It, therefore, directed the respondent to pay to the appellant
the sum of Rs.1,20,000/- in 30(thirty) days and then execute and register the
sale deed in respect of the suit land in the respondent’s favour. If not, the
respondent was given the choice to approach the Court for execution and
registration of the sale deed.
The First Appeal:
19. Challenging the same, the appellant filed Title Appeal No.28 of
2023 before the District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar.
20. By judgment dt.14.02.2025 the said Appeal was dismissed.
21. The Lower Appellate Court also appreciated the evidence on
record and concurred with the findings of the trial Court.

Page 6 of 8 2026:THC:1235
TRHC010005932025

22. It rejected the plea of the appellant that the suit was barred by
limitation and held that the period of limitation for filing the suit would
commence on the expiry of three years period fixed in the agreement to sell
dt.13.06.2018, and since the suit was filed on 16.08.2022, the suit was filed
within time. It also held that the agreement to sell was not hit by Section 23 of
the Contract Act, 1872.
23. It also held that the respondent had proved that he had performed
his part of the agreement and was ready and willing to perform the other terms
of the agreement to sell and, therefore, relief cannot be denied to the
respondent, particularly when the evidence on record established that he was
continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the
appellant had time and again avoided the execution of the sale deed in terms
of the agreement.
The RSA :
24. Challenging the same, this RSA is filed.
25. Counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment of the trial
Court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court was perverse. It is also
contended that if specific performance is granted, the appellant would be left
with no other landed property except the suit land in which he was having a
dwelling house and it would cause extreme hardship to him. He contended
that because the appellant needed money urgently he executed the agreement
to sell, but the appellant had to sell the other property because of failure of
respondent to pay the balance money.
26. I have perused the judgment of the trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court.

Page 7 of 8 2026:THC:1235
TRHC010005932025

27. The execution of the agreement to sell was admitted by the
appellant and also the receipt of Rs.2 lakhs on the date of execution of the
agreement. The respondent had claimed that he had repeatedly contacted the
appellant for receiving the balance money and for executing the sale deed
right from 12.06.2020 onwards till the legal notice was issued on 20.06.2022.
28. Since the appellant during this period had not even issued a legal
notice demanding payment of the balance consideration from the respondent
stating that he was ready and willing to execute the sale deed, and since the
trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had concurrently given findings of
fact that the respondent had performed his obligation under the agreement to
sell, but the appellant had not done so, and the appreciation of such evidence
by both the Courts does not appear to be perverse in any manner, these
submissions of the appellant cannot be accepted.
29. Moreover, having executed the agreement to sell and received the
sum of Rs.2 lakhs from the respondent, the appellant never offered to return
the sum of Rs.2 lakhs during the pendency of the proceedings in the trial
Court or the First Appellate Court.
30. Though there is a plea regarding marriage of the elder daughter
and the need to raise money, no whisper is made in his pleading or evidence as
to the date when the marriage of the elder daughter was performed.
31. It cannot be that on the date of execution of the agreement to sell
in the year 2018, he had such urgency because in such an event he would not
have agreed for a three year period for payment of the balance consideration
and execution and registration of the sale deed. The fact that the appellant had

Page 8 of 8 2026:THC:1235
TRHC010005932025

sold out his other land is also not established by any documentary evidence.
Therefore, this ground also cannot be accepted.
32. There is no question of law much less any substantial question of
law arising for consideration in this RSA.
33. Therefore, the Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.




(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)



























Pulak
PULAK BANIK
Digitally signed by PULAK BANIK
Date: 2026.09.09 13:26:29 +05'30'