Ramavtar Goyanka Vs Juggilal Agrawal (Died through lrs)

1

 2025:CGHC:47442-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

First Appeal No. 179 of 2013

¶6

Ramavtar Goyanka S/o Late Kanhaiyalal Goyanka
Aged About 54 Years R/o Nandan Vihar Colony, In
Front Of Minocha Colony, Mungeli Road, P.S.
Civil Lines, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur C.G.,
Chhattisgarh

¶7

… Appellant/Plaintiff

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Juggilal Agrawal (Died Through Lrs) S/o As
Per Honble Court Order Dated 18/08/2025

¶10

1A - Ramesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Juggilal
Agrawal R/o Shanti Nagar, Gali No.4, Bilaspur,
District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

1B - Vindo Kumar Agrawal (Babbla) S/o Late Shri
Juggilal Agrawal R/o Kashyap Colony, Behind
Surya Hotel, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.

¶12

1C - Ashish Agrawal S/o Late Shri Juggial
Agrawal R/o Parijat Extension, Near Dr. Saraf
Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.

¶13

2

¶14

1D - Sudha Agrawal D/o Late Shri Juggilal
Agrawal C/o Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, C/o Ramesh
Kumar Agrawal, R/o Shanti Nagar, Gali No.4,
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶15

1E - Deepak Kumar Agrawal @ Deepu S/o Late Shri
Juggilal Agrawal C/o Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, R/o
Shanti Nagar, Gali No.4, Bilaspur District-
Bilaspur ,chhattisgarh
2 -The State Of Chhattisgarh Thru- The
Collector, Bilaspur, Tah. And Distt. Bilaspur
C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondents/Defendents

¶17

`For Appellant`	`:Mr. Rahul`	`Kumar, Advocate`
`For Respondent No. 1`	`:Mr. Swayam`	`Tehenguriya,`
	`Advocate`
`For Respondent No. 2`	`:Mr. Sharad`	`Mishra, P.L.`

¶18

DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board

¶19

16.09.2025

¶20

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶21

1. Appellant/plaintiff has preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of CPC impugning the legality, validity and correctness of judgment and decree dated 19/08/2013 passed by learned VI^th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil

¶22

3

¶23

Suit No. 71-A/2013 by which plaintiff’s suit for
specific performance of contract has been
dismissed and in alternative, decree for refund
of sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- with
interest of 6% per annum has been granted in his
favour.

¶24

(For the sake of convenience, the parties will
hereinafter be referred to as per their status
and ranking given in the plaint before the trial
Court.)

¶25

2. Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract stating inter alia that on 18/12/2007 (Ex. P/1), defendant No. 1 executed agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiff with regard to suit land bearing Khasra No. 661/44 area 0.040 hectare, 4284 sq. ft. situated at Juna Bilaspur for a sale consideration of Rs. 29,01,000/- out of which Rs. 5,00,000/- were paid by the plaintiff as advance amount and it was agreed that within 90 days, the plaintiff will pay the rest of the consideration amount and defendant No. 1 will get the sale deed executed in his favour. Thereafter, on 19/12/2007, plaintiff published a public notice

¶26

4

¶27

in the local newspaper to which one Gulam Jilai
objected and filed his public notice in the
newspaper on 17/02/2008 stating that he is in
possession of 2930 sq. ft. of the suit land.
Similarly, one Kamal Kishore also made his
objection. It is the case of the plaintiff that

¶28

he was ready and willing to perform his part of
the contract and also sent a legal notice on
13/03/2018, which was received by defendant No.
1, but he has failed to perform his part of the
contract and execute sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff, which led him to file the said civil
suit.

¶29

3. Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement and

¶30

opposed the plaint averments stating that Gulam
Jilai has no connection with the suit land and
moreover, the suit has not been filed within a
period of three years, therefore, it is barred
by limitation. Furthermore, plaintiff did not
have the requisite sale consideration amount, as
such, he was not ready and willing to perform
his part of the contract.

¶31

4. Learned trial Court framed 3 issues and answered them as stated below :-

¶32

5

¶33

वादप्रश्न नि�ष्कर्ष� 1) क्याअ�ुबंधपात्रनिद�ांक 18/12/07 के " प्रमाणि(��हीं " अ�ुसारप्रति�वादीक्रमांक - 1 वादग्रस्�भूनिमका वादीकेपक्षमेंनिवक्रयपत्रनि�ष्पानिद�कर�ेहे�ु रजामंदएवं�ैयारहै ? 2) क्याअ�ुबंधपत्रकेअ�ुसारप्रति�वादीद्वारा " हाँ " वादग्रस्�भूनिमकानिवक्रयपत्रनि�ष्पानिद��निकयेजा�े कीदशामेंवादीप्रति�वादीसे५लाखरूपयेप्राप्त कर�ेकाअतिधकारीहै ? 3) सहाय�ाएवंवादव्यय ? " कंति4का 15 केअ�ुसार "

¶34

5. In sum and substance, the trial Court returned a

¶35

finding that though plaintiff was ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract, but
defendant No. 1 was not ready and willing to
execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and

¶36

thereafter, declined to grant decree for
specific performance of contract in favour of
the plaintiff holding that there is dispute with
regard to possession of the suit land and rather

¶37

granted the decree for refund of sale
consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with
interest of 6% per annum in his favour.

¶38

6. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the

¶39

appellant/plaintiff, would submit that the trial

¶40

Court is absolutely unjustified in declining to
grant decree for specific performance of
contract in favour of the plaintiff after having

¶41

6

¶42

held in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment
that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform
his part of the contract, as such, the trial
Court ought to have granted the decree for
specific performance of contract in favour of
the plaintiff rather granting decree for refund
of sale consideration, therefore, the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is
liable to be set aside.

¶43

7. Mr. Swayam Tehenguriya, learned counsel for respondent/defendant No. 1, would support the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and submit that neither plaintiff was ready to perform his part of the contrary nor he was willing to pay the sale consideration amount and though plaintiff has made only empty formality by pleading in the plaint that he was

¶44

ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract but he has not filed any document in
support thereof demonstrating that he had the
balancesaleconsiderationamountof

¶45

Rs. 24,01,000/-. He could have filed his Bank

¶46

account statement, etc. showing that he had
sufficient money to pay the sale consideration
amount. Furthermore, though notice was issued by

¶47

7

¶48

the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 on 13/03/2008
but the suit was filed as late as on 03/01/2011
i.e. almost after three years and the long delay
and silence on the part of the plaintiff has not
been explained which shows that plaintiff was
not ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract, as such, the trial Court has rightly
declined to grant decree for specific
performance of contract in favour of the
plaintiff and the instant appeal is liable to be
dismissed.

¶49

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶50

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, the short point involved for determination in this appeal is as follows :-

¶51

“Whether the trial Court is justified in
declining the relief of specific performance of
contract to the plaintiff ?”

¶52

10. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice Section 16(c)

¶53

8

¶54

of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter
the “Act of 1963”) prior to its amendment dated
01/10/2018, which states as under :-

¶55

“16. Personal bars to relief. - Specific
performance of a contract cannot be
enforced in favour of person -

¶56

(a) and (b)

¶57

(c) who fails to aver and prove that he
has performed or has always been ready
and willing to perform the essential
terms of the contract which are to be
performed by him, other than terms the
performance of which has been prevented
or waived by the defendant.”

¶58

11. In order to enforce the plea of specific performance of a contract, it is incumbent on the party to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract.

¶59

Section 16(c) of the Act of 1963 mandates

¶60

“readiness and willingness” on the part of the
plaintiff and it is a condition precedent for
obtaining relief of grant of specific
performance. In a suit for specific performance,

¶61

the onus is on the plaintiff to prove a

¶62

continuous “readiness and willingness” to
perform the contract on his part from the date
of the contract.

¶63

9

¶64

12. There is a distinction between the terms

¶65

“readiness” and “willingness” and while both are requisites for a suit for specific performance, “readiness” means one’s capacity to perform the contract which would also include his financial position whereas “willingness” relates to the conduct of such party. For examining “readiness and willingness”, the party’s conduct prior to and subsequent to filing of the suit becomes relevant . We will discuss both the terms i.e. “readiness” and “willingness” in context of the present case one by one.

¶66

“Readiness”

¶67

13. In the instant case, the plaintiff has clearly pleaded in paragraph 8 of the plaint that he was and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as he has the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 24,01,000/-. Thereafter, in his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC, he has made a similar statement that he was ready and wiling to perform his part of the contract but in the cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not filed any document to demonstrate as

¶68

10

¶69

to how and from where, he will make arrangement
of the balance consideration amount to make
payment to defendant No. 1. Though he has stated
that he had the money deposited in his bank
account but he has not filed his bank account
statement to show the same.

¶70

14. Similarly, though legal notice was sent by the

¶71

plaintiff to defendant No. 1 on 13/03/2008 (Ex.
P/7) in which he has stated in paragraph 9 that
he is ready and willing to perform his part of
the contract and he has the balance sale
consideration amount, however, in issuing the
said notice, plaintiff did not direct defendant
No. 1 to come to the Office of the sub-registrar

¶72

for getting the sale deed executed and he has
admitted in his cross-examination that he did
not go to the office of the sub-registrar with

¶73

the balance sale consideration amount, which
shows that he was not ready with the balance
sale consideration amount of Rs. 24,01,000/- to
perform his part of the contract. As such,
plaintiff has though pleaded that he was ready
to perform his part of the contract but he has
failed to bring evidence on record and prove the
same by showing that he was financially able and

¶74

11

¶75

sound to make payment of the balance sale
consideration amount.

¶76

“Willingness”

¶77

15. Admittedly, the agreement to sale was executed

¶78

by plaintiff and defendant No. 1 on 18/12/2007
(Ex. P/1) and the date fixed for performance of
contract by that agreement was 90 days from the
date of agreement. Thereafter, plaintiff rightly
sent legal notice to defendant No. 1 on
13/03/2008 (Ex. P/7) for execution of sale deed
in his favour but surprisingly thereafter, the

¶79

suit has been filed by the plaintiff on
03/01/2011 i.e. with a delay of almost three
years and the said delay from 13/03/2008 to
03/01/2011 has not been explained by the
plaintiff. Though the suit is said to have been
filed within the period of limitation but there

¶80

is a long and unexplained delay and the

¶81

plaintiff has not brought any document on record
to show that in the said period from 13/03/2008
to 03/01/2011, plaintiff contacted defendant No.
1 and tried to the get the sale deed executed in
his favour. It is well settled that the long
unexplained delay in not taking any reasonable
steps, as is expected from a reasonable person,

¶82

12

¶83

is itself sufficient to disentitle the plaintiff
to an equitable relief (See : U.N. Krishnamurthy

¶84

v. A.M. Krishnamurthy1).

¶85

16. At this stage, the decision rendered by the

¶86

Supreme Court in the matter of Pydi Ramana alias

¶87

Ramulu v. Davarasety Manmadha Rao2 may be
noticed herein profitably wherein their
Lordships of the Supreme Court have relied upon
the decision rendered in Vijay Kumar v. Om
Prakash3 and held that continuous readiness and
willingness is a condition precedent to grant
specific relief and the steps taken by the
plaintiff from the date of agreement to the date
of filing suit will have to be explained and
observed as under :-

¶88

“19. The ratio of the above judgment in
all force would be applicable to the
facts on hand in the instant case. The
agreement of sale (Ext. A-1) was
executed on 7-6-1993 and the date fixed
for execution of the sale deed was one
year from the date of measurement of
thesuitscheduledproperty.
Undisputedly no such measurement was
carried out and the plaintiff has not
raised his little finger in this regard
from the date of execution of agreement
till he got issued legal notice dated
30-5-1996 that is almost for a period
of 3 years and suit came to be filed
only on 9-6-1997 at the fag end of the

¶89

2 (2024) 7 SCC 515

¶90

3 (2019) 17 SCC 429

¶91

1 (2023) 11 SCC 775

¶92

13

¶93

expiration of the limitation. The long
unexplained delay in not taking any
reasonable steps as is expected from a
reasonable person is itself sufficient
to disentitle the plaintiff to an
equitable relief. It is no doubt true
that suit for specific performance can
be filed even on the last date of the
limitation as prescribed under Article
54 of the Limitation Act. However, the
steps taken by the plaintiff during
this period, namely, from the date of
agreement till date of filing of suit
will have to be explained in the plaint
and proved in the evidence which is
lacking in the instant case.

¶94

20. The long unexplained delay and
silence on the part of the plaintiff in
this regard while in the witness box
would not entitle the plaintiff to a
decree of specific performance and it
is for this precise reason, the trail
court as noticed supra has refused to
grant the equitable relief which has
been reversed by the appellate court
without assigning proper and cogent
reason and the one assigned are at
tangent or in other words contrary to
the facts. The resultant effect of
filingthesuitforspecific
performance on the verge of limitation
coming to an end came to be examined by
this Court in Rajesh Kumar v. Anand
Kumar, 2024 SCC Online SC 981, and held
that the plaintiff would not be
entitled to the equitable relief (vide
paras 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18).”

¶95

17. Coming to the facts of the case at hand in light of principles of law flowing from the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court (supra) with regard to Section 16(c) read with Explanation (ii) of the Act of 1963 as unamended, it is

¶96

14

¶97

quite vivid that agreement to sale was entered
into between the parties on 18/12/2007 (Ex. P/1)
and the legal notice was though issued by the
plaintiff within 90 days as per the agreement to
sale i.e. on 13/03/2008 (Ex. P/7) but
thereafter, the suit for specific performance of
contract came to be filed on 03/01/2011 i.e.
after almost three years. As such, though the
suit has been filed within the period of
limitation but the long delay from 13/03/2008
till 03/01/2011 has not been explained and
plaintiff has remained totally silent and has

¶98

not brought any document on record to explain
the said delay. With regard to the balance
consideration amount of Rs. 24,01,000/-,
plaintiff ought to have pleaded in the plaint
that he had sufficient funds or was in a
position to raise funds in time to discharge his
obligation under the contract. As such,
plaintiff has failed to not only specifically
plead, but also failed to prove his continuous
readiness and willingness to perform his part of

¶99

the contract from the date of agreement to sale

¶100

till the date of filing of the suit, which was
the bounden duty of the plaintiff by adducing

¶101

15

¶102

evidence as the continuous readiness and
willingness is a condition precedent to grant
the relief of specific performance.

¶103

18. In view of the aforesaid legal discussion and analysis, we are of the considered opinion that plaintiff has failed to both aver and prove that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In that view of the matter, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for grant of specific performance of contract. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

¶104

19. This first appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

¶105

20. A decree be drawn up accordingly.

¶106

Sd/-Sd/-

¶107

(Sanjay K. Agrawal)(Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge

¶108

Harneet

Ramavtar Goyanka v. Juggilal Agrawal (Died through lrs)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramavtar Goyanka v. Juggilal Agrawal (Died through lrs)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. K. Tiwari Vs Union of India

Mecon Limited Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Jaipal, Vs Government of M.P.

Smt. Rashmi Sahu Vs Shri Thakur Jugal Kishore Mandir Trust Committee

Pramod @ Manoj Tiwari Vs Shri Thakur Jugal Kishore Mandir Trust Committee

Samay Singh Meena Vs Union of India