Appeal against decree for specific performance dismissed. Court held that readiness and willingness were established as the suit fell within extended time. Defendant's plea of coercion and pending rescission suit rejected.
Second appeal dismissed; decree for specific performance confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.4155 of 2014 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4155 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision.16.09.2015
Rajinder Singh @ Harjinder Singh and another
.......Appellants
Versus
Paramjit Singh and another
......Respondents
Present: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. GBS Dhillon, Advocate for the respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
is condoned.
and for a declaration that he had purported to rescind the contract and PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.17 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No.4155 of 2014 (O&M)
-2-
filed the suit on 16.07.2010 that the agreement dated 17.03.2010 had become unenforceable. The suit filed by the defendant was kept pending although he had taken a defence that by virtue of his suit, the plaintiff had lost his right of enforcement. For whatever reason, the defendant was not able to prevail on the trial Court to take up the suit instituted by him earlier in point of time which could have been taken up along with suit for specific performance and being the subject of instant appeal, suit came to be decided independently. I am informed that the defendant's suit is still pending.
the suit for specific peformance could not have been laid at all. PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.17 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-3-
RSA No.4155 of 2014 (O&M)
somewhere that the time was the essence. There is sufficient case law PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.17 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-4-
RSA No.4155 of 2014 (O&M)
to the effect that in respect of immovable property, time is not of the essence. However, there has been a recent trend for looking for appropriate justification for a person not to comply with the terms having regard to the spiraling prices and the inflationary trends in the market that one party who has agreed to obtain a conveyance within a particular date shall at all times show his readiness and willingness and perform his part of the contract and if it was not done, the delay would cause very serious hardship and that therefore, the law would require to be restated that specific performance will be declined unless it is shown that there is nothing attributable to the conduct of the plaintniff that had constitued a delay. In this case, the date which was mentioned was 25.06.2010 and an extension was made upto 20.07.2010. If the extension was not found by the Courts below as having been wrought by any coercion, then the very fact that the suit was instituted on 29.07.2010 would show that there had been no lack of readiness and willingness. It must be a typical case of plaintiff enforcing his right, when his action to secure a sale deed voluntarily from the defendant failed. If the document is made on 17.03.2010 providing for three months time for complying with the terms of contract, then I do not find that there is anything that would turn on the defendant for filing a suit and when he has kept his own suit pending. The finding by the Courts already that the agreement is enforceable will conclude the adjudication and bind the defendant inhis won suit for rescission. The adjudication in the suit which the defendant had instituted cannot be any different from what the trial Court has done in a suit for specific performance. In fact the issue decided in this case will dictate the issue PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.17 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-5-
RSA No.4155 of 2014 (O&M)
to be decided in the other. If two suits had not been taken up together, the suit which is decreed by the trial Court on the finding that the plaintiff had shown his readiness must literally result in a finding of the defendant not being justified in seeking for rescission of contract. The learned counsel states that the very fact of institution of the suit must be taken as proof that the plaintiff had not been ready and willing. Rescission as I have already observed is not one way in so far as it can be justified by his own unilateral act. It must be justified by proof of certain vitiating factors which was not evidenced. In this case, the fact of pendency of the case cannot give any special benefit to the defendant and obstruct the plaintiff for enforcement of a right of specific performance. The plea by the defendant that the extension of time was obtained by coercion at the police station had been suggested to the plaintiff but he has repulsed the suggestion by volunterring a reply in his deposition that he approached the plaintiff only to prevail upon the defendant to execute the sale as per agreement. I will find no defect or error in the decisions of the Court below for interference.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
September 16, 2015 Pankaj*
PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.09.17 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit for specific performance is unsustainable when a vendor had filed a pending suit for rescission of the same contract.
Whether the Extension of time was obtained by coercion affecting the enforceability of the agreement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
I.S. Sikandar (D) by LRs Vs. K. Subramani and othersDistinguished¶25
I.S. Sikandar (D) by LRs Vs. K. Subramani and others 2014(1) RCR (Civil) 236
I.S. Sikandar'sDistinguished¶29
I.S. Sikandar's
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajinder Singh @ Harjinder Singh and another
Paramjit Singh and another
KANNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
