Bhilai Seller Must Honour 2006 House Deal Despite Denying Signature; Chhattisgarh HC Adds ₹1 Lakh To Price for Buyer to Pay

On 29 May 2006, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell House No. EWS-440 for ₹4,50,000, of which the plaintiff paid ₹1,00,000 as advance.

The agreement required the sale deed to be executed within four months.

The plaintiff claimed she arranged the balance, sought the Housing Board’s permission, and repeatedly called upon defendant No. 1 to complete the sale; defendant No. 1 denied signing the agreement and disputed her ability to transfer the property

The trial court decreed specific performance, directing defendant No. 1 to obtain the Housing Board’s permission if required, execute the sale deed, and deliver possession against payment of the balance consideration.

Defendant No. 1 appealed under Section 96 CPC

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides for an appeal from an original decree.

The court applied the principles stated in Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi, (2019) 3 SCC 709: in deciding whether to grant specific performance, the court considers whether a valid concluded contract exists; whether the plaintiff was and remains ready and willing to perform; the extent and conformity of performance; the equitable consequences, including hardship; and whether alternative relief is appropriate.

It also relied on Basavraj v. Padmavathi, (2023) 4 SCC 239, when addressing increased property value and directing additional consideration.

Defendant No. 2 had invoked Section 54 of the Madhya Pradesh Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972, concerning notice, but the court treated Housing Board permission as a procedural requirement to be obtained if necessary.

The court upheld the trial court’s factual findings because the plaintiff’s testimony, the attesting witness’s evidence, and the handwriting expert’s opinion supported execution of the agreement and payment of the advance; the evidence was not materially discredited in cross-examination.

The plaintiff’s notices, efforts to secure permission, and continued pursuit of the sale supported her readiness and willingness, while defendant No. 1’s denial of her signature and failure to respond to notices weighed against her.

The court rejected the ownership objection, noting that the property was held on lease with a right to sell and that Housing Board permission could be obtained.

It held that the prolonged litigation alone did not justify denying specific performance, but, taking account of the property’s increased value, required an additional ₹1,00,000.

The appellant was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal, and the decree was to be drawn accordingly.