SUGHAR SINGH versus HARI SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

SUGHAR SINGH versus HARI SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

The High Court erred in reversing concurrent findings that plaintiff was ready and willing solely for want of specific wording in pleadings under Section 16(c); where the agreement to sell was proved, substantial part of consideration paid and plaintiff shown to be ready and willing, the discretion under Section 20 must be exercised judiciously in favour of granting specific performance; concurrent factual findings not perverse and Trial Court decree restored.

Parties
Appellant: Sughar Singh; Respondent: Hari Singh (dead) through LRs. & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Dated 09.09.2010 in Second Appeal No.836 of 2010
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order dated 09.09.2010 quashed and set aside; Trial Court decree for specific performance restored.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Readiness and Willingness to Perform, Discretion Under Section 20 SR Act, Pleadings Under Section 16(c) SR Act, Scope of Interference Under Section 100 CPC, Bona Fide Purchaser
Specific Relief Act, 1963 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Transfer of Property Act U.p. Legislation Specific Performance Readiness and Willingness to Perform Discretion Under Section 20 SR Act Pleadings Under Section 16(c) SR Act +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sughar Singh

Appellant

Hari Singh (dead) through LRs. & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Dated 09.09.2010 in Second Appeal No.836 of 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff pleaded and proved he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement as required by Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
  2. 2 Whether High Court could, under Section 100 CPC, interfere with concurrent findings of fact on readiness and willingness
  3. 3 Whether discretion under Section 20 Specific Relief Act justified refusal of specific performance despite agreement proved and part consideration paid

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in reversing concurrent findings that plaintiff was ready and willing solely for want of specific wording in pleadings under Section 16(c); where the agreement to sell was proved, substantial part of consideration paid and plaintiff shown to be ready and willing, the discretion under Section 20 must be exercised judiciously in favour of granting specific performance; concurrent factual findings not perverse and Trial Court decree restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order dated 09.09.2010 quashed and set aside; Trial Court decree for specific performance restored.

Orders

  • Judgment and decree dated 07.02.1987 of Trial Court restored and suit decreed for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.10.1976 in favour of plaintiff
  • Defendants (heirs and legal representatives of defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 to 5) to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff within four weeks from date of judgment