JUDGEMENT
HEMANT GUPTA,J -
(1.)THE defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 2.12.1987, was decreed.
(2.)THE admitted facts are that on the aforesaid date, the defendant agreed to sell land measuring 23 Kanals 12 Marlas at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre. A sum of Rs. 6000/- was paid as earnest money. The parties agreed that the sale deed will be executed within two months on sanctioning of mutation. The civil suit crystalizing the right and interest of the defendant was decided on 2.5.2000 and on the basis of the said decree, the mutation was sanctioned in favour of the defendant on 25.9.2000. Since the defendant did not execute the sale deed as agreed in the aforesaid agreement within two months, the present suit for specific performance was filed on 17.11.2000. Both the Courts have decreed the suit.
Though it is the case of the plaintiff that the possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff at the time of executing the aforesaid agreement to sell, but the stand of the defendant in the written statement is that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land with the spirit of agreement to sell. The defendant pleaded in para 7 of legal submissions that the grant of decree for specific performance will cause irreparable loss and injustice to the defendant and that the defendant will suffer extreme hardship in the eventuality if the sale deed is ordered to be executed.
(3.)THE learned counsel for the appellant in the present second appeal has raised the sole argument that the execution of the sale deed more than 20 years after the parties entered into agreement will cause extreme hardship to the defendant. It is argued that the defendant had the intention to sell the property in the year 1987, but with the passage of time, the increase in the prices will create undue hardship to the defendant and that the defendant is ready and willing to sell the land to the plaintiff at the current market price. It is also argued that the plaintiff has enjoyed the possession of the property on payment of meager sum of Rs. 6000/- as earnest money for the last 20 years. Therefore, grant of decree for specific performance at this stage on the price settled by the parties in the year 1987 would be wholly inequitable, unjust and would be an act of extreme hardship over the defendant. Reliance is placed upon M. Meenakshi and others v. Metadin Agarwal (D) by LRs and others (2006)7 SCC 470, to contend that due to increase in prices on account of passage of time, the relief of decree in a suit for specific performance should have been declined under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.