1 / 20 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR First Appeal No. 81 of 2023 Judgment Reserved on :03.07.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 15.07.2025 1 - Navneet Singh Chawla S/o. Late Kuldeep Singh Chawla, Aged About 43 Years R/o. Adarsh Kiraya Bhandar, Phool Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Harjeet Kaur Chawla, W/o. Late Kuldeep Singh Chawla, Aged About 66 Years R/o. Adarsh Kiraya Bhandar, Phool Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Manmeet Kaur Chhabda, W/o. Shri Ranjeet Singh Chhabda, Aged About 41 Years R/o. Ward Mana Peth, Near Hindi City Girls High School, Chandrapur, Maharashtra Kuldeep Singh Chawla, S/o Late Trilok Singh Chawla (Since died). ... Appellants Versus 1 - Smt. Mona Gupta W/o. Shri Rajeev Gupta, Aged at present About 46 Years, R/o. Pandari, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Rajeev Gupta, S/o. Shri Sardari Lal Gupta, Aged at present About 52 Years R/o. Pandari, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.16 14:25:14 +0530 2 / 20 For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Mr. Shashwat Mishra and Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Malay Shrivastava and Ms. Anu Mishra, Advocates Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey, Judge Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge C A V Judgment Per Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. The appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2023 passed by 8th Additional District Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.42A/2014, by which the plaintiffs’ suit for specific performance of contract has been dismissed holding that plaintiffs were not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in their favour. The parties of this appeal shall be referred herein as per their description before the learned trial Court. 2. Brief facts of the case, are that, the original plaintiff Kuldeep Singh Chawla has filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction against the defendants alleging that a registered agreement to sale has been executed between the parties on 20.06.2012 and a sum of Rs.10,20,000/- was agreed to be sale consideration in respect of the land in dispute bearing Plot No.C-58/5 and C-59/5 total area 4800 Sq.Ft. situated at Devendra Nagar Project No.32, Raipur, which has been received by the 3 / 20 defendants on lease/patta. It was further alleged that at the time of execution of agreement to sale, entire amount of consideration has been paid and there was nothing to be paid to the defendants. The defendant No.2 at the time of entering into agreement has suppressed the material fact that the property in question has been mortgaged with the Vijaya Bank, Raipur. The original plaintiff Late Kuldeep Singh Chawla was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Since entire amount of consideration to the tune of Rs.10,20,000/- itself has been paid, as such, nothing was remained to be paid. During pendency of suit, original plaintiff Kuldeep Singh Chawla expired on 03.12.2019 and thereafter, legal representatives were brought on record, who are contesting the suit and appeal. The date of 01.07.2013 was fixed for execution and registration of the sale deep of the disputed land, however, the defendants have not performed their part and they have not executed the sale deed for one or another ground. Subsequently, when the defendants started efforts to alienate the suit property, the original plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of contract as also for permanent injunction. 3. The defendants have filed their written statement while denying the plaint averments. It was pleaded that the agreement itself was not executed by the defendants due to financial difficulties. The defendant No.1 has taken some financial assistance from the 4 / 20 original plaintiff and in order to secure the said loan, present agreement was executed on 26.06.2012. They have already filed a suit for cancellation of agreement dated 26.06.2012 as it was not an agreement to sale, but a security for loan taken from the original plaintiff. The defendants never intended to sell the land. The land in question is a valuable land worth Rs.1,50,00,000/-, as such for a sum of Rs.10,20,000/- it cannot be sold. The agreement was executed only for security of loan taken by defendant No.2 from the original plaintiff. The so-called agreement is in fact a document of security for the loan obtained by defendant No.2 from the original plaintiff. 4. The learned trial Court after framing issues in the case and after taking evidence of parties has came to the conclusion that though the agreement was executed between the parties on 26.06.2012, but the original plaintiff has failed to prove that he was ready and willing for registration of land in question and accordingly, plaintiffs cannot be granted a decree for specific performance of contract under Sections 16(c) and 20 of the Specific Reliefs Act, 1963 (for short, ‘Act of 1963’). 5. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe assisted by Mr. Shashwat Mishra and Mr. Arpan Verma, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that trial Court has erred in law while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. All other issues including issue regarding execution of agreement has been proved in favour of the plaintiffs and against 5 / 20 the defendants. The entire amount of sale consideration has been paid to the defendants. There is nothing remains to be paid to the defendants. From the perusal of the agreement (Exhibit-1C), defendants are required to obtain necessary documents, however, the defendants have concealed this fact that the property in question was mortgaged with Vijaya Bank, Raipur. Further, the defendants were under obligation to obtain the documents and NOC from the Raipur Development Authority and to get the registered sale deed executed on 01.07.2013, which they have failed to do so. In the agreement, it has been categorically mentioned that if the defendants would fail to execute sale deed, the plaintiffs would be at liberty to file suit for specific performance of contract. The plaintiffs have denied to sell the land, as such cause of action arose for the original plaintiff to file the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction. Since the entire amount of sale consideration has been paid, as such from the part of the plaintiffs, nothing has to do. On the date and time i.e. 01.07.2013 when the sale deed was not executed, the suit was filed. Each and every issue has been decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Insofar as ready and willingness are concerned, since the entire amount has been paid and so far as obtaining the document and NOC was concerned, it was upon the defendants to obtain the same. The original plaintiff cannot be said that he was not ready and willing. 6 / 20 6. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that from perusal of the evidence as well as documents, it is well founded that the original plaintiff was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed. The allegation of the defendants that it was for security purpose is without any basis. The factum of readiness and willingness can be gathered from the agreement, which is specific in nature stating that after payment of entire consideration, it was upon the defendants to collect the documents as well as NOC and as such the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the original plaintiff is not ready and willing as per Section 16(c) and 20 of the Act of 1963 is perverse and contrary to the pleadings and evidence set-forth by the parties. The payment of entire consideration itself goes to show that the original plaintiff was ready and willing to execute the sale deed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court in the matters of Motilal Jain v. Ramdasi Devi (Smt.) and others, (2000) 6 SCC 420, Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Muddasani Sarojana, (2016) 12 SCC 288 P. Ramasubbamma v. V. Vijayalakshmi and others, (2022) 7 SCC 384 and Gaddipati Divija and Another v. Pathuri Samrajyam and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 442 (paras 35 & 36). 7 / 20 8. Taking aid to paragraphs-35 & 36 of the judgment in Gaddipati Divija (supra), learned counsel for the appellants argued that only a meager amount was required to be paid, which is 20,000/-; entire sale consideration has already been paid and therefore, unless and until, the defendants performed their part of obligation while collecting the revenue documents as well as NOC from the Raipur Development Authority, it cannot be said that plaintiff was not ever ready and willing to pay balance consideration. Since a time was fixed i.e. 01.07.2013 on which the plaintiff has failed to got the sale deed executed, upon which Rs.20,000/- was required to be paid on that date, it could not be paid. 9. Likewise, in the matter of P. Ramasubbamma (supra), learned counsel for the appellants while relying paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 submits that Section 20 of the Act of 1963 is a discretionary relief and therefore, when all the issues have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs, the trial Court was not justified in holding that original plaintiff was not ready and willing for execution of the sale deed. The vendee has performed his entire part of consideration and it was upon vendor to collect the documents as well as NOC, which he has not performed and as such, the trial Court was unjustified in holding that original plaintiff was not ready and willing. 10. Relying upon the paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 in Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (supra), he submits that when the execution of agreement was found to be proved and the issues are also 8 / 20 decided in favour of the plaintiffs, the trial Court has committed an error in law while holding that original plaintiff was not ready and willing. 11. It has been further argued while relying upon paragraphs 10 to 14 in Motilal Jain (supra) that since the plaintiff has already deposited the entire consideration as such, the discretionary relief under Section 20 of the Act of 1963 could have been passed in favour of the plaintiffs and the trial Court was unjustified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground of readiness and willingness. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Malay Shrivastava assisted by Ms. Anu Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondents has argued that trial Court has passed a well reasoned judgment and decree while holding that original plaintiff was not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed. He further submits that original plaintiff was well aware that the document which is purported to be an agreement to sale is a document of security of the loan taken by defendant No.2 from the original plaintiff. The original plaintiff was well aware of this fact that the property in question was worth Rs.1,50,00,000/- and therefore, the original plaintiff has not even issued any notice to the defendants showing his readiness and willingness for execution of the sale deed. Even if, the agreement to sale is to be considered, a specific date was mentioned in the agreement to sale, however, the original plaintiff has not stated 9 / 20 anything. He has not sent any notice etc. for execution of sale deed. When the original plaintiff started making efforts for sale of said land on the basis of security document, the defendants in order to challenge the said document, have filed a suit for cancellation of so-called agreement to sale. No agreement to sale was sale ever executed between the parties and that is why, the original plaintiff has never asked for execution of sale deed. It has been contended that earlier suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 26.06.2012, which has been incorporated to be an agreement to sale was filed way back on 28.10.2023. When this fact came into the knowledge of the original plaintiff, suit for specific performance was filed on 24.02.2014, suggestive of the fact that original plaintiff was misusing the document (Exhibit-1C) therefore, in order to dispute the same, he has filed subsequent suit without any notice or without showing any readiness and willingness. In fact, the original plaintiff was well aware about this fact that the document is not a document of agreement to sale but it has been got executed only for security purpose for the loan taken by defendant No.2. The land in question is a valuable land and according to Exhibit D-4, the guidelines issued by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur for the said area, it comes to Rs.36,000/- per meter when the land is situated upto 20 meters from the main road and Rs.26,500/- per meter when the land beyond 20 meters from the main road. If taking into consideration 10 / 20 the said aforesaid market value, the amount of the land comes to the tune of Rs.1,72,00,000/- and as such, the defendants should have not agreed to sale the land in such a meagre price. 13. It has been further contended that non-issuance of notice for getting the sale deed executed is an important aspect and there was no such evidence to show that the agreement to sale has been executed for sale of aforesaid land and therefore, the trial Court even after considering the other issues in favour of the plaintiffs, came to the conclusion that the original plaintiff has failed to readiness and willingness to got the sale deed executed in his favour. The trial Court has considered this aspect minutely and has held that the original plaintiff was not ready and willing to purchase the land in question. 14. Learned counsel for respondents has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Pydi Ramana alias Ramulu v. Davarasety Manmadha Rao, (2024) 7 SCC 515 and R. Shama Naik v. G. Srinivasiah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3586 as well as the judgment rendered by this Court in First Appeal No.102/2019 (Smt. Krishna Devi Agrawal v. Vishnu Soni and another) decided on 14.02.2025 to buttress his submissions. 15. While relying upon paragraph 17 of the judgment of Pydi Ramana alias Ramulu (supra), learned counsel for respondents submits that the original plaintiff has not brought anything on record to 11 / 20 prove that he contacted the defendant after due date of execution of sale deed and was interested in finalizing the deed. 16. It is submitted while relying upon paragraphs 9 to 13 of the judgment of R. Shama Naik (supra) that no specific averments have been made in the plaint in respect of readiness and willingness. It has also not proved in the evidence, which is obligatory on the part of the plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance of contract to plead and prove the factum of readiness and willingness. In the present matter, the plaintiffs have failed to prove readiness and willingness as required under the law and as such, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit for specific performance and performance injunction, which is not required to be interfered with. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 18. In order to consider readiness and willingness of the original plaintiff, averments of the plaint has been taken into consideration. In respect of pleading regarding payment of entire consideration, date of execution of the sale deed dated 01.07.2013 mentioned and further except of readiness and willingness for execution of sale deed, nothing has been stated regarding efforts made by the original plaintiff showing his 12 / 20 readiness and willingness. Not a single effort either in the shape of notice or any other shape showing readiness and willingness has been mentioned in the plaint. 19. The defendants on the contrary have specifically stated that no agreement to sale was ever executed by them. The defendant No.2 has taken loss of Rs.10,20,000/- from the original plaintiff and as a security, agreement to sale dated 20.06.2012 has been executed though property in dispute worth Rs.1,50,0000/-. However, defendants have specifically stated that defendant No.2 has informed the original plaintiff regarding mortgaged of the suit property in Vijaya Bank, Raipur when the original plaintiff has published notice in the News paper Daink Bhaspar, Raipur on 20.06.2013 in respect of sale of land in dispute of Rs.5,000/- per Sq.Ft. Defendants have filed a suit for declaration of agreement to sale dated 26.06.2012 to be null and void and for permanent injunction, which was registered bearing Civil Suit No.267-A/2013, a copy of the suit is also annexed in the present suit as Ex.D/1. 20. From the perusal of plaint, it appears that suit was filed way back on 28.10.2013 i.e. prior to institution of the present suit on 25.02.2014. The original plaintiff has expired during pendency of the present suit for specific performance of contract, as such present appellants who are legal representatives were substituted in place of original plaintiff. 13 / 20 21. The original plaintiff Kuldeep Singh Chawla was examined before the trial Court. In his cross-examination, he has admitted this fact that prior to institution of the suit on 25.02.2014, defendants have filed a suit for cancellation of agreement dated 26.06.2012. He has also admitted in the sui,t which has been filed by the defendants, the plaintiff and his sons were made party. It was also admitted by him that in order to sell and purchase of the lands, several agreement were executed by him. Suggestion were also put that none of the agreements were turned into execution of the sale deed, which he has denied. 22. Defendant No.2 Rajeev Guta has examined himself as DW-1, who has stated in his evidence that there was no agreement to sale dated 26.02.2012 executed between the parties. The said deed was in fact a security paper for loan of Rs.10,20,000/- taken from the original plaintiff. He has also categorically stated that when the defendants tried to sale the land in question, they have instituted a suit for cancellation of agreement to sale dated 26.06.2012. He categorically stated that he has executed Ex.P/1 for security purpose for the land to the tune of Rs.10,20,000/-, which has been taken from the original plaintiff. He has not executed any deed for sale of land in question. The land in question is valuable land worth Rs.1,50,00,000/-. 23. The trial Court after considering the pleadings of the parties have framed issues and while declaring other issues to be proved vide 14 / 20 issue No.6, it has been categorically held that there is nothing on record to show that original plaintiff was ever ready and willing to get the sale deed executed. The sale deed has to be executed on 01.07.2013 as per Ex.P/1, however, in the entire pleadings of the plaint as well as in the evidence the original plaintiff, has failed to show any act what action he has taken when the sale deed was not got executed on 01.07.2013. No evidence was produced to show the readiness and willingness of the original plaintiff. 24. In a suit for specific performance of the contract, readiness and willingness is an essential requirement, which has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ene number of judgments. In the matter of Pydi Ramana (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 mandates “readiness and willingness” of the plaintiff to be averred and proved. Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 are relevant for the purpose and the same are reproduced below for easy reference :- “11. At the outset, it requires to be clarified and made clear that in the instant case the amendment brought to the Specific Relief Act by Act 18 of 2018 would be inapplicable. The amendment is prospective in nature and cannot be applied to those transactions which took place prior to amendment. In order to prove that the plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance as per the law existing 15 / 20 prior to amendment, the plaintiff has to establish: (a) that a valid agreement of sale was entered into by the Defendant in his favour; (b) that the defendant committed breach of the agreement; and (c) that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations in terms of the agreement. 12. Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act provides certain bars to the relief of specific performance. “16. Personal bars to relief.- Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person- (a) who would not be entitled to recover compensation for its breach; or (b) who has become incapable of performing, or violates any essential term of, the contract that on his part remains to be performed, or acts in fraud of the contract, or wilfully acts at variance with, or in subversion of, the relation intended to be established by the contract; or (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 of the performance of 16 / 20 which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. Explanation- For the purpose of clause (c),- (i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court; (ii) the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.” READINESS AND WILLINGNESS NOT PROVED 13. In order to obtain a decree for specific performance, the plaintiff must aver and prove that he has performed his part of the contract and has always been ready and willing to perform the terms of the contract which are to be performed by him. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act mandates ‘readiness and willingness’ of the plaintiff to be averred and proved and it is a condition precedent to obtain the relief of specific performance. 14. There is a distinction between the terms ‘readiness’ and ‘willingness’. ‘Readiness’ is the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which includes his financial position to pay the sale consideration. ‘Willingness’ is the conduct of the party. In the instant case, 17 / 20 even according to the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, it would emerge that the plaintiff had been able to successfully prove the sale agreement dated 07.06.1993 Ex.A1 on which date Rs.2,005/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The evidence on record tendered by plaintiff came to be accepted by all the courts and judgments of courts below would also indicate that further amount towards sales consideration in a sum of Rs.17,000/- was paid by plaintiff to defendant on 23.06.1993 and same was endorsed by him. 15. As per the recital in the agreements, the defendant was required to get the suit land surveyed and as such the total consideration was agreed to be settled after such survey. On the one hand, the plaintiff contends that defendant never got surveyed the suit land. On the other hand pleadings and evidence of plaintiff is silent on steps taken by the plaintiff as expected of a reasonable person which has not been taken in the instant case namely the plaintiff has not produced any evidence either oral or documentary to establish that there was any demand made by him for the land being surveyed by defendant. No witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiff to establish that at any point of time there has been demand made by the plaintiff with the defendant by calling upon him to get the suit 18 / 20 land surveyed as agreed under the agreement of sale Ex.A-1. x x x x x x 17. As rightly pointed out by the trial court, the respondent-plaintiff has not produced any satisfactory evidence to prove his readiness and willingness. As regards ‘willingness’ of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract, the conduct of the plaintiff warranting the performance has to be looked into. The following conduct of the plaintiff warrants consideration: (a) Plaintiff got issued legal notice nearly after two years after the expiry of one year period as prescribed in the agreement. (b) Plaintiff has not brought anything on record to prove that he contacted the Defendant after the expiry of one year period and was interested in finalising the deed. (c) There was total inaction of the Plaintiff from 06/06/1994 (expiry of one year period) to 30/05/1996 (Date of issuance of legal notice) (d) Suit was filed on 09/06/1997 i.e. after a period of more than one year from the date of issuing of legal notice. Said delay has not been sufficiently explained by the Plaintiff.” 19 / 20 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of R. Shama Naik (supra) held in paras 9 to 13 as under :- “9. There is a legion of precedents on the subject of readiness and willingness. 10. The law is well settled. The plaintiff is obliged not only to make specific statement and averments in the plaint but is also obliged to adduce necessary oral and documentary evidence to show the availability of funds to make payment in terms of the contract in time. 11. There is a fine distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract. Both the ingredients are necessary for the relief of specific performance. 12. While readiness means the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the plaintiff. 13. The High Court in first appeal upon appreciation of the evidence on record both oral and documentary has arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.” 26. In light of the aforementioned decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is evident that, in the present case as well, the original plaintiff 20 / 20 has failed to establish that he was continuously ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. Furthermore, it is significant to note that the defendants have firstly instituted a suit seeking a declaration that the agreement to sell is null and void and subsequently, the original plaintiff after lapse about four months has instituted present suit, without any justification or having any cause of action only to counter the earlier suit filed by the defendants. 27. Upon a thorough analysis of the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court rightly concluded that the original plaintiff was not ready and willing to have the sale deed executed. The findings recorded by the trial Court are based on a proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 28. Let a decree be drawn-up accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Yogesh