PARSWANATH SAHA versus BANDHANA MODAK (DAS) AND ANR.

PARSWANATH SAHA versus BANDHANA MODAK (DAS) AND ANR.

The High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court decree because the defendants failed to establish by cogent evidence that the predecessor-seller could not have foreseen the hardship at the time he executed the agreement; hardship under Section 20(2)(b) must be determined with reference to circumstances existing at the time of the contract (except where hardship results from an act of the plaintiff), and accordingly the Trial Court decree for specific performance was restored with modification that the plaintiff pay Rs.20,00,000 as balance consideration and, upon receipt, the defendants shall execute the sale deed.

Parties
Appellant: Parswanath Saha; Respondent: Bandhana Modak (Das); Respondent: Master Diptanu Das
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Tripura Dated 29.07.2022 in RFA No. 28 of 2019 (regular First Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order set aside; Trial Court decree restored with modification.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Hardship Under Section 20, Discretion to Decree Specific Performance, Readiness and Willingness to Perform, Section 20(2)(b) Explanation 2
Specific Relief Act Property Law Civil Procedure Equity Specific Performance Hardship Under Section 20 Discretion to Decree Specific Performance Readiness and Willingness to Perform +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parswanath Saha

Appellant

Bandhana Modak (Das)

Respondent

Master Diptanu Das

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Tripura Dated 29.07.2022 in RFA No. 28 of 2019 (regular First Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Trial Court decree for specific performance
  2. 2 Whether hardship under Section 20(2)(b) must be unforeseeable at the time of entering into the contract
  3. 3 Whether the defendants established that performance would involve hardship which the predecessor did not foresee

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court decree because the defendants failed to establish by cogent evidence that the predecessor-seller could not have foreseen the hardship at the time he executed the agreement; hardship under Section 20(2)(b) must be determined with reference to circumstances existing at the time of the contract (except where hardship results from an act of the plaintiff), and accordingly the Trial Court decree for specific performance was restored with modification that the plaintiff pay Rs.20,00,000 as balance consideration and, upon receipt, the defendants shall execute the sale deed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order set aside; Trial Court decree restored with modification.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 29.07.2022 set aside
  • Decree of the Civil Judge granting specific performance restored with modification