1 2025:CGHC:56160 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for Judgment on : 17.09.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 18/11/2025 Judgment Uploaded on : 18/11/2025 FA No. 209 of 2012 Roshanlal Chahal S/o Late Ram Swarup Chahal Aged About 40 Years, Occupation-Service, R/o. Dhangerdipa, New Shanker Nagar, Raigarh, P.S. Kotra Road, Raigarh, Tah. And Distt. Raigarh C.G. --- Appellant versus 1 - Panchram @ Pancham Kewat, S/o Sudama Aged About 27 Years, occupation – Agriculturist, R/o. Dhangerdipa, Raigarh, Tah. And Distt. Raigarh C.G. 2 - Santosh Jha S/o Vishwanath Jha Aged About 42 Years 3 - Niranjan Jha S/o Vishwanath Jha Aged About 40 Years . 4 - Govind Jha S/o Vishwanath Jha Aged About 38 Years No. 2 to 4 all are R/o. Dhangerdipa, New Shanker Nagar, Raigarh, Tah. And Distt. Raigarh C.G.. 5 - State Of Chhttisgarh, Through - Collector, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G. --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4 : None present. For Respondent No.5/State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu CAV Judgment 1. Appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal questioning the legality and sustainability of the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.10.2012, passed in Civil Suit No.10-A/2012, whereby learned First Additional BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.18 17:00:49 +0530 2 District Judge, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) has dismissed the civil suit filed by plaintiff/appellant for specific performance of contract. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract pleading therein that he entered into an agreement to sell, with defendant No.1 on 11.01.2007 of land bearing Kh. No.129/1B/1 measuring 0.10 dismil, which is jointly recorded in the name of defendant No.1 and his brother for total consideration of Rs.3.00 lakhs and paid sum of Rs.5,000/- as an advance on 11.01.2007 i.e. on the date of execution of agreement to sell. It is also pleaded in the plaint that at the time of agreement, it was settled that defendant No.1 will get the property, subject matter of agreement to sell partitioned with his brother and thereafter sale deed would be executed. It is also pleaded that at the time of entering into sale agreement it was also further agreed that if the land bearing Kh. No.129/1B/1 will not fell in his share, he will execute sale deed of other land falling in his share immediately after informing the plaintiff about the partition after accepting the balance amount of Rs.2,95,000/-. Defendant did not get the sale deed executed for long time and was avoiding for one or other reasons. Upon further enquiry, plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 got the land partitioned and recorded separately in his name of land bearing Kh. No.119/1B/4 and sold those lands to defendant No.2 to 4 vide registered sale deed dated 25.09.2009 and 31.08.2009. It is also pleaded that at the time of execution of agreement on 11.01.2007, possession of property was also handed over to the plaintiff. 3 3. Defendant No.1 submitted written statement to the plaint filed by plaintiff denying the adverse pleading made therein. It is specifically denied that cheating the plaintiff, sale deed dated 31.08.2009 and 25.09.2009 was executed. It was further pleaded that pursuant to the agreement to sell dated 11.01.2007, plaintiff had already got sale deed in favour of his wife Sukhi Devi of land Kh. No.129/1B/1. Defendants after execution of sale deed in favour wife of plaintiff could not obtained original agreement to sell as it was not handed over to him. Kistbandi of land Kh. No.129/1B/1 was taken plaintiff before getting the sale deed executed in favour of his wife, for verifying the land in revenue records, thereafter, informed defendants that only 4.5 dismil land is remaining in that khasra and even after partition of land from his brother, 1 dismil land would also not fall in share of defendant No.1. At the time of execution of sale deed in name of his wife, plaintiff paid sale consideration of land after deducting the advance amount of Rs.5,000/-, defendant has not breached any of the conditions of contract entered into between them. Plaintiff is trying to take undue advantage of original agreement to sell in his possession, which he kept stating wrong facts to the defendant No.1 that after execution of sale deed in favour of his wife, he torned it. 4. Defendants No.2 to 4 also submitted written statement supporting the pleadings of defendant No.1. It was also pleaded that the land Kh. No.129/1B/1 after partition has changed to 129/1B/4. Plaintiff and defendant No.2 are known to each other, he was aware of the registration of the land in favour of defendant No.2, however, he did not raise any objection based on the agreement to sell, dated 11.01.2007. 4 5. Learned trial Court based on the pleadings of respective parties formulated as many as 7 issues for consideration and after conclusion of full fledged trial it recorded a finding that plaintiff could not prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. It is further recorded that plaintiff pursuant to the agreement to sell dated 11.01.2007 had got the sale deed executed in favour of his wife of land bearing Kh. No.129/1B/1 and dismissed the suit by the impugned judgment and decree. 6. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that learned trial Court erred in dismissing the suit recording erroneous finding that sale deed was executed in favour of wife of plaintiff pursuant to agreement to sell (Ex.P-1) dated 11.01.2007. He contended that learned trial Court fell into error in not considering the specific pleadings made in the plaint that the land subject matter of dispute and relief to execute the sale deed of the same khasra number bearing No.129/1D/4. Finding recorded by learned trial Court that plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed is also erroneous. According to agreement to sell it was upon defendant No.2 to inform the plaintiff, after getting partition of the joint property recorded in name of defendant No.1 along with his brother. Defendant No.1 has not given any information about happening of partition and without notice to the plaintiff, got the sale deed executed in favour of defendants No.2 to 4. Findings recorded by learned trial Court is perverse to the evidence available on record. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused records of the trial court. 5 8. Perusal of the plaint would show that plaintiff in plaint pleaded that there was an agreement to sell dated 11.01.2007 between plaintiff and defendant No.1. Subject matter of agreement is land bearing Kh. No.129/1B/1 measuring 0.10 dismil. In an amended pleadings it is pleaded that the land bearing Kh. No.129/1B/1 is recorded jointly in name of defendant No.1 along with his brothers and after partition, if the land, subject matter of agreement to sell will not fall in his share, then he will execute the sale deed of other land. Agreement to sell is placed on record as Ex.P-1. Perusal of the agreement to sell would show that in the bottom of right hand corner there is signature of scribe and below it is signature of defendant No.1 and witnessed by two persons namely Lachhiram and Mahipal Singh. It does not bear the signature of plaintiff – Roshan Lal. Close study of document (Ex.P-1 ) would show that there is clause mentioned therein that plaintiff may get the sale deed executed in his name or in the name of any person of his choice and will accept the balance sale consideration at the time of execution of the sale deed. Subject matter of agreement to sell (Ex.P-1) is of land bearing Kh. No.129/1B/1 measuring 0.10 dismil. Ex.D-1 is a sale deed executed by five brothers including defendant No.1 in favour of Smt. Sukhi Devi, wife of plaintiff Roshan Lal on 17.01.2007. Subject matter of the land of sale deed (Ex.D-1) is the land bearing Kh. No.129/1B/1 measuring 2016 sq.ft. 9. From the aforementioned documents (Ex.D-1) as also (Ex.P-1) it is apparent that the land, which is subject matter of the agreement to sell (Ex.P-1) has been purchased by the plaintiff in name of his wife and further from the contents of both the documents it is also apparent that the property which was purchased by plaintiff and recorded in (Ex.P-1) 6 is a joint property of all five brothers, therefore, all five brothers jointly executed the sale deed in favour of wife of plaintiff. It shows that there was no hurdle in execution of sale deed of land bearing Kh. No.129/1B/1, which is subject matter of agreement to sell (Ex.P-1), therefore, it is prima-facie appearing that plaintiff has not pleaded the correct facts in plaint and has not approached the Court with clean hands. In pleadings of plaintiff, plaintiff has not given any explanation about sale deed executed in favour of his wife on 17.01.2007 after about six days of execution of agreement to sell dated 11.01.2007. The grounds raised by plaintiff that after execution of agreement to sell, registered sale deed could not be executed only because the property, subject matter of agreement to sell is jointly recorded in name of brothers, appears to be false when the sale deed has been jointly executed by all five brothers. It is not a case of plaintiff that there was some dispute between brothers, therefore, execution of sale deed pursuant to (Ex.P-1) of a property jointly recorded could not be possible. 10. From the aforementioned facts and particularly the fact that agreement to sell is dated 11.01.2007, plaintiff till 07.12.2009 has not taken any action on agreement to sell and kept quite even on execution of sale deed in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 on 31.08.2009 and 25.09.2009 though there is pleading in the plaint that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract but for the pleadings no evidence is brought on record to prove that plaintiff was having sufficient funds to pay the huge sum of Rs.2,95,000/- to get the sale deed executed, if any. 7 11. Plaintiff to prove his case examined Mohanpal Singh Rana as (P.W.-1). He stated in his examination in chief about execution of agreement between plaintiff and defendant No.1 of land bearing Kh. No.129/1B/1. This witness in para-14 have stated that he is not aware about the execution of sale deed dated 17.01.2007 in favour of wife of plaintiff Smt. Sukhi Devi. Plaintiff also has not pleaded about execution of sale deed in favour of his wife of the land, which is mentioned in the (Ex.P-1) agreement to sell, which shows that plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of A. Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 654 has held that the party seeking equitable relief of specific performance must approach the Court with clean hands. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Darshan Singh v. Brij Bhushan Chaudhary, reported in (2024) 3 SCC 489 has considered the conduct of plaintiff of making false statement and whether in that facts of the case, the discretionary relief under Section 20 can be granted and held thus :- “12. Under Section 20 of the 1963 Act, the grant of a decree for specific performance is always discretionary. The exercise of discretion depends on several factors. One of the factors is the conduct of the plaintiff. The reason is that relief of a decree of specific performance is an equitable relief. A person who seeks equity must do equity. * * * 18. As observed earlier, the relief of specific performance is discretionary and equitable. Considering the plaintiffs' conduct of making false and/or incorrect statements in the 8 plaint, which were very material, we hold that the plaintiffs are disentitled to relief of specific performance. It is pertinent to note that Plaintiff 1 admitted in the examination-in-chief that the suit property was the HUF property. Even after that, the plaintiffs continued to prosecute the suit by seeking a decree in respect of the entire suit property. The plaintiffs did not give up their case concerning the shares of other co-sharers who were not parties to the suit. Therefore, the trial court, appellate court and High Court were justified in denying discretionary relief of specific performance to the plaintiffs.” 14. Apart from the above discussions if a person files a case seeking relief under specific performance of contract then it is the burden upon plaintiff to plead and also prove that he or she is always ready and willing to perform his/her part of contract. In the case at hand there is no pleading in the plaint that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. No admissible evidence is brought on record to show that there was sufficient means of funds to get the sale deed executed, nor produced any documentary evidence. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K. Karuppuraj v. M. Ganesan, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 777 observed that readiness and willingness is mandatory for grant of specific performance and held thus :- “15. The submission on behalf of the plaintiff that in the agreement a duty was cast upon the defendant to evict the tenants and to handover the vacant and peaceful possession, which the defendant failed and, therefore, in such a situation, not to pass a decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff would be giving a premium to the defendant despite he having failed to perform his part of the contract. The aforesaid seems to 9 be attractive but for the purpose of passing a decree for specific performance, readiness and willingness has to be established and proved and that is the relevant consideration for the purpose of passing a decree for specific performance.” 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jagjit Singh v. Amarjit Singh, reported in (2018) 9 SCC 805 has observed that while considering the failure of plaintiff to establish readiness and willingness on his part held plaintiff disentitle to specific performance of contract and observed thus – “4. It is settled law that a plaintiff who seeks specific performance of contract is required to plead and prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract [ “16. Personal bars to relief.—Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person—(a)-(b) ***(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.”] . Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act mandates that the plaintiff should plead and prove his readiness and willingness as a condition precedent for obtaining relief of grant of specific performance. As far back as in 1967, this Court in Gomathinayagam Pillai v. Palaniswami Nadar [Gomathinayagam Pillai v. Palaniswami Nadar, (1967) 1 SCR 227 : AIR 1967 SC 868] held that in a suit for specific performance the plaintiff must plead and prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract right from the date of the contract up to the date of the filing of the suit. This law continues to hold the field and it has been reiterated in J.P. Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao [J.P. Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao, (2011) 1 SCC 429 : 10 (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 227] and P. Meenakshisundaram v. P. Vijayakumar [P. Meenakshisundaram v. P. Vijayakumar, (2018) 15 SCC 80 : (2018) 5 Scale 229] . It is the duty of the plaintiff to plead and then lead evidence to show that the plaintiff from the date he entered into an agreement till the stage of filing of the suit always had the capacity and willingness to perform the contract.” 17. If the facts of the case are considered in light of the aforementioned decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that plaintiff could not able to prove and establish his readiness and willingness to perform the contract entered into between plaintiff and defendant No.1, therefore, in absence of proof of readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiff, which is condition precedent to get the relief of specific performance of contract, no relief as prayed by plaintiff in civil suit can be granted. One of the other important aspects of the case is that the conduct of plaintiff does not appear to be fair in the facts of the case and had not come to the Court with clean hands. 18. From the documentary evidence available in record, it is apparent that agreement to sell was executed on 11.01.2007 (Ex.P-1). One sale deed is executed in favour of wife of plaintiff on 17.01.2007 i.e. within a week of execution of agreement to sell, which was not pleaded in the plaint. No document has been placed on record by plaintiff to show that the execution of the registered sale deed (Ex.D-1) in favour of wife of plaintiff of same land, which is subject matter of agreement to sell (Ex.P-1) was pursuant to any other agreement to sell between the parties.. 19. The relief U/s. 20 of the Specific Performance of Contract is discretionary relief, therefore, the plaintiff has to prove all essential 11 conditions required to get the decree of specific performance of contract failing which, the plaintiff will not be entitled to discretionary relief of getting a decree of specific performance of contract. 20. Learned trial Court in the impugned judgment and decree has taken into consideration that the sale deed of land, subject matter of agreement to sell (Ex.P-1) was already executed in favour of wife of plaintiff, the said execution of sale deed was not pleaded in the plaint and suppressed the same and further that plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed which in view of the above discussions and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the opinion of this Court cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree in the opinion of this Court does not call for any interference. Leaned trial Court upon appreciating the facts and evidence available on record has correctly arrived at conclusion that plaintiff failed to prove his case and dismissed the suit. 21. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. 22. Decree be drawn accordingly. 23. Parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram