Dismissed

Mata Prasad v. Ved Praakash

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2019SAPL/63/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench dismissed the appeal filed against the lower appellate court's order allowing the suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. The Court held that the remedy is discretionary but not arbitrary, and no sufficient hardship was pleaded by the appellant to justify refusing specific performance.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Mata Prasad Vs Ved Praakash — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 16 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 63 of 2012 Appellant :- Mata Prasad Respondent :- Ved Praakash Counsel for Appellant :- Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,Anshu Chaudhary,Jitendra Kumar Rawat Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay K. Singh,Anurag Pathak

¶2

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashok Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶4

The present appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 5.10.2011 passed by the lower appellate court whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffrespondent has been allowed decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract while the trial court had partly decreed the suit for refund of the earnest money.

¶5

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a suit for specific performance of contract was instituted by the plaintiffrespondent, alleging that a registered agreement to sell was executed on 29.7.1993 by the appellant-defendant in favour of the plaintiff with regard to his agricultural Plot No. 193, area 0.83 decimal, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/-, out of which Rs. 20,000/- was paid as earnest money and remaining amount was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.

¶6

The defendant-appellant contested the matter and denied execution of the registered agreement to sell but stated that he had executed a Rahannama and not the agreement to sell and subsequently he had refunded the amount mentioned in the agreement to the extent of Rs.18,000/- and only Rs. 2000/remains balance to be paid. Both the parties in support of their respective claims, led oral as well as documentary evidence. The trial court, however, vide judgment and decree dated 3.11.2010 partly decreed the suit directing for refund of the earnest money with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum, recording a specific finding that the registered agreement to sell had been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

¶7

On appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent, the lower appellate court had affirmed the finding so recorded by the trial court to the effect that registered agreement to sell had been executed by the defendant and further took the view that when the fact of registered agreement was established between the parties, the

¶8

trial court was not justified in directing the refund of the earnest money. Therefore, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and directed the defendant-appellant to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent after receiving Rs. 15,000/i.e. the balance of the total sale consideration from the plaintiffrespondent.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the hardship will be caused to the defendant in case the sale-deed is executed in respect of land in question in favour of the plaintiff.

¶10

On the other side, learned counsel for the respondent has justified the findings recorded by both the courts below.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions as raised by the parties and perused the record.

¶12

The only question involved in the present appeal is about that the extension of discretion considering the hardship of the appellant in view of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act.

¶13

The courts below in the present case have not exercised the discretion under section 20 of the Act. Indisputably, the remedy for specific performance is an equitable remedy. The courts while granting relief for specific performance exercise discretionary jurisdiction. Section 20 of the Act provides that the courts jurisdiction to grant the decree of specific performance is discretionary but not arbitrary. The discretion must be exercised in accordance with the sound and reasonable judicial principles. In the present case, no hardship has been pleaded by the defendant/appellant in his written statement to the effect in case the sale-deed was executed he will suffer any hardship and the concurrent finding was recorded that agreement to sell was executed between the parties.

¶14

After hearing the submissions and on perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the definite opinion that it is not a fit case where the discretionary relief for specific performance is to be granted in favour of the defendant-appellant and there is no justification to interfere with the findings so recorded by both the courts below.

¶15

The proposed substantial questions of law framed by the appellant in the appeal do not involve any legal issue.

¶16

The appeal is devoid of merit, and is, accordingly dismissed. No order to cost.

¶17

Order Date :- 29.1.2019/Akbar

Mata Prasad v. Ved Praakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mata Prasad v. Ved Praakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baij Nath Vs Chhedi Lal and Others

Shri Mahaveer Singh Vs Shri Maharaj Singh

Noorjahan and 6 Others Vs Sufi Mohd. Haneef

Sovran Singh (Deceased) 8 Others Vs Babu Ram (Deceased) 9 Others

Nar Singh and Others Vs Ilam Singh

State of U.P. and Another Vs Balveer Singh and Others