Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court rejects “choose-your-relief” decree, orders specific performance of land sale agreement

M/S Dreamland Builders vs Dashrath Singh Solank

Madhya Pradesh High CourtJUDGMENT: July 30, 20263 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Madhya Pradesh High Court rejects “choose-your-relief” decree, orders specific performance of land sale agreement. M/S Dreamland Builders vs Dashrath Singh Solank. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The appellant-plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance concerning 1.142 hectares of land in Survey No. 402, Village Fanda Kalan, Bhopal, under an agreement to sell dated 20.02.2012 for ₹1,66,38,000.

Source reference: [para. 4–5]

The plaintiff asserted that ₹83,00,000 had been paid and that the balance ₹83,38,000 was payable upon execution of the sale deed.

Source reference: [para. 4–5]

Although the agreement and receipt of the amount were admitted, the defendant resisted the suit, alleging the plaintiff’s breach and contending that the property’s value had substantially increased.

Source reference: [para. 4–5]

The Trial Court found the agreement, payment, limitation, and the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness proved, but passed an unusual decree giving the defendant alternatives: execute the sale deed for the entire land, execute it for half the land, or refund ₹83,00,000 with interest.

Source reference: [para. 6–7]

The plaintiff challenged the ambiguity and ineffectiveness of this decree in the present appeal under Section 96 CPC.

Source reference: [para. 8–9]
02

Issues

1. Whether a decree for specific performance may give the defendant the option either to execute the sale deed, execute a sale deed for part of the property, or refund the advance consideration.

Source reference: [para. 9–14]

2. Whether the Trial Court could grant refund of the advance amount when specific performance had been decreed and no specific alternative prayer for refund had been made in the plaint.

Source reference: [para. 15–17]

3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an unconditional decree for specific performance in view of the findings regarding execution of the agreement and his readiness and willingness.

Source reference: [para. 16–21]
03

Law Applied

The Court applied Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing first appeals, and the principles governing specific performance of contracts for sale of immovable property.

Source reference: no citation

Under Section 22(1)(b) read with Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, refund of earnest money or advance consideration is a separate relief that must be specifically claimed, particularly where specific performance is refused; it cannot ordinarily be granted suo motu.

Source reference: [para. 15–17]

A court must itself determine and grant a definite relief and cannot leave the operative choice between specific performance and refund to the defendant.

Source reference: [para. 13–14]

The Court relied on K.R. Suresh v. R. Poornima, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1014, reaffirming that a specific prayer or amendment is necessary for grant of refund under Section 22.

Source reference: [para. 17]

It also applied the principle that subsequent appreciation in property prices is not, by itself, a valid ground for refusing specific performance of a proved agreement to sell.

Source reference: [para. 18–19]
04

Reasoning

The Trial Court’s findings established that the agreement was genuine, ₹83,00,000 had been paid, and the plaintiff remained ready and willing to perform his obligations.

Source reference: [para. 6, 16]

Accordingly, the decree should have granted a clear and operative remedy for specific performance.

Source reference: no citation

By permitting the defendant to choose between executing the sale deed, conveying half the land, or refunding the advance, the Trial Court effectively delegated its adjudicatory function to the defendant and created an uncertain decree.

Source reference: [para. 13–14]

The alternative refund direction was also legally unsustainable because specific performance had not been refused and the plaint contained no specific prayer for refund under Section 22.

Source reference: [para. 15–17]

The defendant’s objection that the land had appreciated in value did not justify non-performance, particularly when no circumstance disentitling the plaintiff from specific performance was established and the defendant had not filed any cross-appeal or cross-objection against the findings favourable to the plaintiff.

Source reference: [para. 18–20]
05

Holding

The appeal was allowed and the Trial Court’s findings were affirmed, but its operative decree was modified.

The plaintiff was directed to pay or deposit the balance consideration of ₹83.38 lakhs within two months from the appellate judgment.

Source reference: [para. 22(a)–(b)]

Upon such payment or deposit, the defendant was directed to execute the sale deed in the plaintiff’s favour within 15 days.

Source reference: [para. 22(c)]

If the defendant failed to do so, the plaintiff could have the sale deed executed through the executing court and obtain possession.

Source reference: [para. 22(c)]

The defendant was not permitted to elect refund, partial conveyance, or non-performance.

Source reference: no citation
06

Acts & Sections Cited

3 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Civil Procedure, 19081

Specific Relief Act, 19632

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

M/S Dreamland BuildersvsDashrath Singh Solank

Madhya Pradesh High Court · July 30, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment