Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24089 Court No. - 5 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 23 of 2021 Appellant :- Shiv Kumar And Ors. Respondent :- Maqsood Ahmad Counsel for Appellant :- Mohiuddin Khan,Lalit Kishore Tiwari,Mirza Shariq Aziz Counsel for Respondent :- Akbar Ahmad,Gaurav Mehrotra,Maria Fatima Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard Shri Lalit Kishore Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Ms. Maria Fatima, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.11.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge / Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No.4, Lucknow in Regular Civil Appeal No.286 of 2018 (CNR No. UPLKO10205142018), Maqsood Ahmad vs. Shiv Kumar and Others, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff / respondent against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2018 passed in Regular Suit No.824 of 2011 has been allowed. 3. The instant appeal has been admitted by this Court on 10.03.2021 on the following substantial question of law which is as under:- "whether a suit of the plaintiff-respondent could be decreed without considering and recording a finding as to whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act." 4. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as urged by the learned counsel for the appellants are that a registered agreement for sale had been entered into between Shri Shivdutt (seller) and Shri Maqsood Ahmad (purchaser / the respondent herein) for selling of various gatas having a total area of 2.062 hectares. The sale agreement as set forth in the said agreement was for Rs.18,00,000/- of which an advance of Rs.8,00,000/- is said to have been received by the seller. The balance amount as per the said agreement was Rs.10,00,000/-. As per the condition stipulated in the said agreement (internal page 14 / page 136 of the appeal), upon preparation of the entire documents pertaining to sale, the seller would give written information to the purchaser and upon receipt of the said information, the purchaser would pay the balance amount to the seller and get the sale deed executed within six months of the receipt of information in this regard from the seller. 5. It is contended that as Shri Shivdutt belonged to a reserved category (SC), consequently, permission from the Collector was required under the provision of Section 157A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to "Act, 1950"). 6. The permission was applied for and was granted by the Collector on 07.10.2011. The said permission was for a period of one month. 7. As Shri Shivdutt did not proceed for execution of the sale deed, consequently, the respondent herein / plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance on 05.11.2011. 8. During pendency of the suit, Shri Shivdutt died on 29.01.2012 and his legal heirs were substituted before the learned trial court. The legal heirs also filed a suit No.62 of 2014 praying for cancellation of agreement for sale. 9. The suit of the respondent herein was dismissed by the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2018, however, learned trial court provided that the plaintiff would be entitled for refund of the amount which has been paid to Shri Shivdutt which amount would be paid by his legal heirs. In turn the suit filed by the legal heirs for cancellation of the said agreement for sale has also been dismissed. 10. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff / respondent herein filed an appeal. 11. Learned appellate court, vide judgment dated 06.11.2020, has allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court dated 31.10.2018 and has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff / respondent and has directed for specific performance of the said agreement after taking the balance amount within two months. 12. Being aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been filed. 13. The substantial question of law on which the second appeal has been admitted has already been set forth above. 14. The grounds as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants while raising a challenge to the judgment passed by the learned appellate court are that (a) the learned appellate court has failed to consider the purport of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1963") as would be apparent from a perusal of substantial question of law as framed by this Court and; (b) the agreement for sale was itself defective as there was no disclosure in the said agreement for sale that the said agreement was entered into between the respondent herein and Shri Shivdutt who belongs to reserved category and consequently, the permission under Section 157A of the Act, 1950 would be required. 15. No other ground has been urged by learned counsel for the appellants. 16. Arguing on the first ground, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the permission under Section 157A of the Act, 1950 was granted by the Collector on 07.10.2011 and was valid up to 06.11.2011 and the suit itself has been filed on 05.11.2011 and thus, the plaintiff did not comply with the provision of Section 16(c) of the Act, 1963 which fact has not been appreciated by the learned appellate court while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. 17. The aforesaid ground is found to be patently fallacious and misconceived considering the fact that Section 16(c) of the Act, 1963 provides that a specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person who fails to 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 of the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. 18. Admittedly, the agreement for sale is dated 21.05.2007. An advance of Rs.8,00,000/- has been received by Shri Shivdutt as finds place in the agreement for sale. The balance payable was Rs.10,00,000/-. The permission from the Collector for selling of the land to Shri Mustaq Ahmad had been received on 07.10.2011. Despite the agreement for sale categorically providing that as soon as the documents for sale are prepared by the seller he would inform the purchaser in writing about it, Shri Shivdutt failed to inform Shri Mustaq Ahmad about the permission having been obtained by him. Admittedly, a further amount of Rs.3,00,000/- over and above the advance of Rs.8,00,000/- was paid by Shri Mustaq Ahmad to Shri Shivdutt on 21.09.2011, i.e. even prior to filing of the suit, which itself is indicative of the fact that the plaintiff all along was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract despite no efforts having been made by the seller namely Shri Shivdutt to inform about the permission having been granted by the Collector so that the sale deed could be executed. Thus, the said ground is rejected. 19. The other ground which has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the agreement for sale was itself defective as there was no disclosure in the said agreement regarding Shri Shivdutt being a person belonging to reserved category and would require a permission from the Collector under the provision of the Act, 1950 to sell the land. 20. The said ground though has not been indicated as substantial question of law by this Court while admitting the appeal vide the order dated dated 10.03.2021 yet is also found to be patently fallacious and misconceived inasmuch as, as already indicated above, that there was a specific term in the agreement that as soon as the seller gets ready all the documents required for execution of the sale deed he will inform the purchaser about it so that the sale deed could be executed. 21. The words "preparation of all documents" would obviously include the permission from the Collector for selling of the land and nothing more is required to read in the said agreement. Thus, the said ground is also rejected. 22. The substantial question of law stands answered. 23. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference with the judgment of the learned appellate court is made out. 24. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 25. The trial court record be transmitted back. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 S. Shivhare Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench