Seller Denied Signing 2011 Land Deal, But His Notice Admitted Agreement And ₹8.6 Lakh Advance: Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Specific Performance

The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 24 November 2011 concerning land in Korba for ₹12,50,000.

He alleged that he paid ₹6,00,000 on execution and a further amount in instalments, and that the defendant was to obtain the Collector’s permission before completing the sale.

The Collector granted permission on 23 May 2014; the plaintiff said he learned of it on 31 May 2016, then issued a notice seeking execution of the sale deed.

The defendant denied executing the agreement and disputed receipt of money and the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief.

The trial court decreed specific performance, finding that ₹8,60,000 had been paid and directing payment of the remaining ₹3,00,000.

The defendant appealed.

Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 bars specific performance in favour of a plaintiff who fails to aver and prove performance, or readiness and willingness to perform, the essential terms required of him; actual tender or deposit of money is not ordinarily necessary unless directed by the court.

Readiness concerns financial capacity, while willingness is assessed from the plaintiff’s conduct.

The Court relied on J.P. Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao, (2011) 1 SCC 429, reiterating N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, (1995) 5 SCC 115, on that distinction.

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a three-year limitation period for a suit for specific performance; the Court treated the period as commencing when the plaintiff learned that the Collector had granted permission.

The Court also considered the Court Fees Act, 1870 in upholding the trial court’s court-fee finding.

The Court upheld the finding that the agreement was executed, relying on the plaintiff’s evidence, the testimony of three attesting witnesses, the notary’s evidence, and the defendant’s counter-notice acknowledging the agreement and receipt of advance consideration.

It considered the handwriting experts’ conflicting opinions alongside this corroborating evidence and found no basis to treat the agreement as forged.

On limitation, it accepted that the plaintiff learned of the Collector’s permission on 31 May 2016 and held the suit filed on 19 January 2017 to be within Article 54’s three-year period.

On readiness and willingness, the Court relied on the plaintiff’s payment of the major part of the consideration, his efforts to obtain the permission order, and his subsequent notice seeking execution of the sale deed against payment of the balance.

It found no sufficient reason to disturb the trial court’s conclusion on that issue.

It also found no basis to interfere with the trial court’s court-fee or jurisdiction findings.

The plaintiff was to pay the remaining ₹3,00,000 within the period directed by the trial court, and the defendant was to bear the registration costs.

No order as to costs was made.