Patna High Court
Sanjay Kumar SharmaversusSubodh Kumar Sharma
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court held that the agreement for sale dated 10‑02‑2004 was valid, the plaintiff satisfied the readiness and willingness requirement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, and consequently the decree for specific performance was upheld.
Summary
The appellant, Sanjay Kumar Sharma, was the defendant in a title suit where the plaintiff, Subodh Kumar Sharma, claimed that the appellant had agreed to sell a parcel of land for Rs 3,00,000 and had received Rs 2,94,000 as consideration but failed to execute the final sale deed. The plaintiff sought specific performance of the agreement dated 10‑02‑2004 (a Baibeyana deed). The appellant contended that the deed was forged, that the transaction was a loan, that the suit was barred by limitation, waiver and estoppel, and that a notice dated 07‑09‑2007 cancelled the agreement. The trial court held the deed valid, found the plaintiff ready and willing to perform under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, and granted specific performance. On appeal, the High Court examined the oral and documentary evidence, including admissions by the appellant’s father and brother that the agreement was executed and consideration received, and rejected the appellant’s claim of a loan or cancellation. It affirmed the trial court’s findings, held the agreement enforceable, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the suit for specific performance is maintainable
- Whether the plaintiff has a valid cause of action
- Whether the suit is barred by limitation, estoppel, waiver or acquiescence
- Whether the Baibeyana deed dated 10‑02‑2004 is a valid and genuine agreement for sale
- Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of the agreement
- Whether the notice dated 07‑09‑2007 effects a cancellation of the agreement
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 96
- Specific Relief Act, 1963 — s. 16(c)
Subjects
- specific performance
- agreement for sale
- baibeyana deed
- contract law
- estoppel
- limitation
- readiness and willingness
- property law
- civil procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
FIRST APPEAL No.102 of 2014
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar Sharma Son of Sri Shyam Narain Sharma @ Faujdari Sharma
Resident of Village - Damrahi Ghat, P.O. - Madhav Mills, P.S. - Malsalami,
District - Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Subodh Kumar Sharma Son of Lala Prasad Vishwakarma Resident of
Didarganj, P.O. - Madhav Mills, P.S. - Didarganj, District -Patna
2. Sunaina Devi, W/o Shri Nathun Rai, R/o village Didarganj, P.S. Didarganj,
P.O. Katra Bazar Samiti, District Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ravindra Kr Sinha No.2
Mr. Trishul Dhari Nath Verma, Adv.
Mr. Samir Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr.Awadhesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shashi Shekhar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Anjani Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 15-05-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsels for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. The instant appeal has been filed under section 96
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as
“the code”) against the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2014
passed by the learned Sub-Judge-V, Patna City, District Patna, in
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
2/25
Title Suit No.199 of 2007.
3. The appellants were the defendants to the Title Suit
No.199 of 2007 and the respondents herein were the plaintiff.
4. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant
Sanjay Kumar Sharma, was the absolute owner and occupier of
a piece of land situated at Mauja Nasirpur, Rajpur, P.S.-
Didarganj, Distt.- Patna having its Tauji no.- 232, Thana no.- 40,
part of Khesra no.- 650 under Khata no.-157, having an area
17(seventeen) dhur and 12(twelve) dhur. The defendant Sanjay
Kumar Sharma was in dire need of money to meet out his legal
necessity to pay off his creditors and there was no means to
arrange and hence the defendant made a general proclamation
for the suit land. After such proclamation, the plaintiff
approached the defendant and requested him to sell the suit land
and offered a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs). The
defendant found the offer price of the suit land to be reasonable
and thus he voluntarily accepted the offer and agreed to execute
an agreement for sale with respect to the suit property.
Thereafter, a Baibeyana deed was drafted upon the instruction of
the defendant on 10.02.2004 and the same having been typed on
a non-judicial stamp was duly signed by the plaintiff and
defendant. Upon such Baibeyana a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- as an
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
3/25
earnest money out of total consideration amount of Rs.
3,00,000/-. The Baibeyana deed dated 10.02.2004 states that the
defendant has to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff with respect to the suit property within the stipulated
period of 11(Eleven) months and the defendant has to perform
his part positively by 9th January 2005. It has been stipulated
that under the said sale deed, if the defendant fails to execute the
sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the balance
consideration money, then the sale deed has to be executed
through the process of the court at the cost of the defendant.
5. The plaintiff paid the consideration amount to the
Defendant on the following days.
1. Rs. 34,000/- On 05.01.2005
2. Rs.36,000/- On 25.10.2005
3. Rs. 48,000/- On 25.10.2006
4. Rs. 32,000/- On 02.07.2007
6. Thus, Rs. 2,94,000/- out of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid
to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was always ready to get the sale
deed executed on payment of the balance consideration money
of Rs. 6,000/- but the defendant has deliberately and purposely
failed to perform his part of the contract and failed to execute
the absolute sale deed, and hence, for the performance of such
suit was filed.
7. The defendant/appellant challenged the contention
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
4/25
of the plaintiff on a number of grounds, submitting that the suit
was not maintainable and the plaintiff had no cause of action
and that the suit was false and concocted. The
defendant/appellant stated that the suit is barred by law of
limitation and the principles of waiver, estoppels and
acquiescence. The defendant/appellant stated that he was in
need of money and hence he took a loan of Rs. 1,44,000/- from
the plaintiff on 10.02.2004, but the plaintiff, while giving the
loan to the defendant, had obtained thumb impression on blank
non-judicial stamp paper and also on plain papers and thereafter
the plaintiff/respondent converted those papers into an
agreement for sale illegally with a view to grab the property. It
was further contended that the matter was set to rest by the
intervention of people and the defendant had promised to return
the loan amount within a year and then the plaintiff forgave his
claim on the basis of an alleged agreement for sale dt.
10.02.2004. Due to poverty, the defendant could not return the
aforesaid loan amount to the plaintiff, as a result of which the
plaintiff filed the suit. It is the case of the defendant/appellant
that the defendant/appellant signed a blank non-judicial paper
and one plain paper, which the plaintiff has illegally converted
for its own use and thus on that basis the plaintiff filed the suit
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
5/25
for specific performance. The defendant had never negotiated to
sell the property and executed the baibeyana dated 10.02.2004.
8. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the
pleadings of the parties and the materials available before it,
framed the following issue:-
I. Is the suit as framed maintainable?
II. Whether the plaintiff has got a valid cause of action
for the suit?
III. Is the suit barred by the law of limitation,
estoppels, waiver and acquiescence?
IV. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for
specific performance of contract under the agreement for sale of
Baibeyana deed dated 10.02.2004?
V. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to
perform his part of the contract?
VI. Whether the baibeyana deed dated 10.02.2004 is
legally valid and genuine?
VII. To what other relief or reliefs is the plaintiff
found entitled?
9. The learned trial court recorded its finding that the
most important issue to be decided was issue no.-4, i.e.,
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for specific
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
6/25
performance of contract under the agreement for sale of
baibeyana deed dated 10.02.2004?” Thereafter, upon analysis of
the oral and documentary evidence(s) on record adduced at the
trial, the learned trial court came to a finding that the deed dated
10.02.2004 is valid. The evidences adduced are consistent and
cogent. The learned trial court has extol the oral evidence of
P.Ws, and found that as readiness and willingness are required
U/S 16(C) of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff has well
proved that he has performed and has always been willing and
ready to perform the essential terms of the contract of the
agreement for sale dated 10.02.2004 executed by the defendant.
The plaintiff proved his case and in this manner the learned trial
court ruled in favour of the plaintiff.
Submissions
10. Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant has
submitted that it was neither the defendant/appellant, who had
asked the deed writer to write the agreement for sale and nor
was it typed on his instructions and the defendant/appellant
denies the execution of any Bai Bayana including the Bai
Bayana dated 10.02.2004. Learned counsel for the
defendant/appellant submits that it is an admitted case of the
defendant/appellant that he was in urgent need of money, so he
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
7/25
received amount of Rs.1,44,000/- from the plaintiff by way of
loan and the plaintiff/respondent obtained signature and thumb
impression on non-judicial stamp as well as on other blank
papers and subsequently converted the same into Bai Bayana.
The defendant/appellant has also denied that any further amount
was received by the defendant/appellant.
11. The learned counsel for the defendant/appellant
further submits that the defendant/appellant had in fact sent
legal notice dated 07.09.2007 (Exhibit-3) though his advocate
denying the execution of the alleged agreement for sale as well
as requested to receive the amounting to Rs.1,44,000/- within 15
days, which meant that the alleged Bai Bayana (Exhibit 1) even
if was valid has been deemed to cancel. Learned counsel for the
defendant/appellant has submitted that the findings arrived at by
the learned Trial Court is wrong and incorrect as the learned
Trial Court has not taken into account the Exhibit-3, i.e., the
notice dated 07.09.2007, which was given by the
defendant/appellant to the plaintiff/respondent no.1.
12. Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant has
submitted that the plaintiff/respondent witnesses were not
consistent and cogent has held by the learned Trial Court as P.W.
1, namely, Subodh Kumar Sharma has admitted in his
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
8/25
examination-in-chief that the original Bai Bayana dated
10.02.2004 was executed in his presence and after receiving the
earnest money the defendant/appellant had put his signature in
the presence of the witnesses contradicts himself during cross-
examination wherein he has admitted that he had not given the
money and in fact his father had done all the work. It has been
submitted that the said statement is beyond the pleading of the
plaintiff and thus falsifies the case of the plaintiff.
13. It has also been submitted that as the father of the
plaintiff/respondent no.1 has not been examined, in such
circumstances the factum of execution and giving the
consideration amount is not proved. It has next been submitted
that as per the deposition of P.W. 2, it would be safely assumed
that the agreement was not prepared in his presence and thus he
is a hearsay witness and only to support the plaintiff’s version,
he was examined and thus, his statement cannot be relied upon.
14. Referring to the statement of the P.W. 3, it has
been submitted that the statements cannot be relied upon, in
view of his contradictory statements made in paragraph ‘5’ and
paragraph ‘21’ and also in paragraph ‘19’ of his cross-
examination. While P.W.4 is an interested witness because
during the pendency of the suit the agreement was executed
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
9/25
in his favour for the suit land as stated by him in paragraph ‘17’
of his cross-examination and therefore, his statement cannot be
relied upon.
15. Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant has
submitted that the grant of relief of specific performance is
discretionary and equitable relief and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Kamal Kumar vs. Premlata Joshi and Ors.
reported in 2019 (3) SCC 704 has framed the material questions
in paragraph ‘7’ of the said judgment, which classifies the
situations in which grant of relief of specific performance can be
made. It has, thus, been submitted that in view of the factual
circumstances the plaintiff/respondent no.1 has not made out a
case as to whether there existed a valid and concluded contract
between the parties for sale and purchase of the suit property.
16. Hampering upon his submissions that at the time
of Bai Bayana deed (Exhibit-1) the plaintiff/respondent was
neither present nor any payment was given by the
plaintiff/respondent clearly goes on to show that he was not
present at the time of execution of the deed and the same was
admittedly done by his father.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant has also
submitted that in absence of any declaratory relief to declare
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
10/25
that the notice dated 07.09.2007 (Exhibit-3) given by the
defendant/appellant makes the suit for specific performance not
maintainable. It has, thus, been summarized by the appellant
that in absence of a valid agreement between the parties whether
a decree for specific performance of execution of sale deed in
respect of the suit property can be delivered. It has next been
submitted that the existence of a valid agreement is sine qua
non for grant of specific relief of performance and a non-
existent agreement to sale cannot be enforced.
18. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sangeeta
Sinha vs. Bhawna Bhardwaj reported in 2025 (3) BLJ 116
(SC) (2025 SCC OnLine SC 723). The learned counsel for the
defendant/appellant has submitted that the defendant/appellant
has denied the execution of valid contract/agreement dated
10.02.2004 (Exhibit-1) and as such non-existent agreement to
sale cannot be enforced by Court of law and on this ground
alone the suit was no maintainable and thus the present appeal is
fit to be allowed. Learned counsel has submitted that the
conduct of the plaintiff can be judged by the fact that during the
pendency of the suit he had entered into a Bai Bayana with a
third person who was also examined as P.W. 4, namely, Nathun
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
11/25
Rai and the said property has now been delivered in favour of
the Nathun Rai.
19. Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant has
referred to a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in M/S
Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals vs M/S Ramaniyam Real
Estates P.Ltd.& Anr. reported in 2011 (9) SCC 147, wherein it
has been held that due to suppression of material facts purchaser
is not entitled to any relief in his suit for specific performance as
in the present case the plaintiff/ respondent no.1 has failed to
disclose in the plaint that the defendant/appellant had issued the
notice dated 07.09.2007 (Exhibit-3) requesting him to receive
the loan amount within 15 days.
20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
plaintiff/respondent No.1 has submitted that the case of the
plaintiff/respondent No.1 was simply based on the agreement
for sale (Exhibit-1) dated 10.02.2004, which was signed by the
defendant/appellant and there was an admission of receiving the
consideration amount for the same. It has been submitted that
the amount which had been received by the defendant/appellant
was duly signed on various dates and therefore, denial at this
stage and coming out with a new story after accepting 98% of
the consideration amount goes on to show that the
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
12/25
defendant/appellant has tried to make out a different story of
taking loan, however, the documents on record, i.e., Exhibit-1
and Exhibit-3 clearly shows that the amount was paid in lieu of
agreement for sale.
21. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondents
submits that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
defendant/appellant in the case of Sangeeta Sinha vs. Bhawna
Bhardwaj (supra) is misplaced as that was a case where a clear-
cut notice for canceling of the agreement for sale was made and
therefore, the same cannot be applied. The learned counsel for
the plaintiff/respondent has relied upon ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. Ramasubbamma vs V.
Vijayalakshmi reported in 2022 (7) SCC 384 in which the
Hon’ble Court has held that once the execution for agreement of
sale and payment/receipt of advance substantial sale
consideration was admitted by the vendor, thereafter, nothing
further was required to be proved by the plaintiff/respondent. It
has, thus, been submitted that the present appeal has got no
merit and is fit to be dismissed.
22. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits
that during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal the learned
Executive Court got the sale deed executed in favour of the
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
13/25
plaintiff/respondent no.1 on 18.06.2016 and pursuant to the
same the plaintiff/respondent no.1 has also executed registered
sale deed on 19.02.2016 in favour of Smt. Sunina Devi,
respondent no.2. It has been pointed out that this Hon’ble Court
vide order dated 30.10.2023 has allowed the interlocutory
application bearing I.A. No.3 of 2023 which was filed under
Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure for adding the name of Sunaina Devi as respondent
no.2.
23. It has been submitted that the execution of the sale
deed in favour of the Sunaina Devi was admitted by the
plaintiff/respondent no.1 and thereafter, the present respondent
no.2 was directed to be implead as respondent no.2.
24. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has also
retreated the arguments forward by the respondent no.1 and has
stated that in view of such position in law and the facts and
circumstances, the present first appeal is fit to be dismissed.
Consideration
25. The plaintiff/respondent no.1 in order to prove his
case, has laid oral as well as documentary evidence and got
examined five witnesses. P.W. 1 is the plaintiff/respondent no.1
himself, while P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the witnesses to the agreement
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
14/25
for sale, whereas P.W. 4 is one Nathuni Rai and P.W. 5 is
Satyendra Kumar. The documentary evidence brought on record
by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 was the agreement for sale
dated 10.02.2004, which was marked as Exhibit-1, while the
signature of witness Raj Kumar on the Bai Bayana Deed was
marked as Exhibit-1/A, while Exhibit-2 series are legal notices
sent to the defendant-appellant and Exhibit-3 is the reply to the
legal notice sent by the defendant-appellant.
26. The defendant-appellant also got examined four
witnesses, namely, Shyam Narayan Sharma, D.W.1, father of the
defendant-appellant, D.W.2, Bisheshwar Prasad, D.W.3, Ganga
Vishwkarma, D.W.4, Sanjay Kumar Sharma, the defendant-
appellant himself.
27. From appraisal of the evidence of the various
witnesses, the evidence of one witness becomes of prime
importance, which is D.W.1, Shyam Narayan Sharma, who
happens to be the father of the defendant-appellant. This
witness, during his cross-examination in paragraph ‘12’, has
admitted that Exhibit-1, i.e., the agreement for sale, was
prepared in his presence. He has further admitted the writing
and signature of his as well as also the signature of his son,
Manoj Kumar Sharma, over the same. Further, in paragraph
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
15/25
‘13’, he has identified the signature of his son, Sanjay Kumar
Sharma (the defendant-appellant), on both page nos. 1 and 2 of
Exhibit-1.
28. Such admission by D.W.1 of execution of the
agreement for sale and acceptance of the amount and the
signatures put therein creates a doubt over the case of the
defendant-appellant, as in the written statement, the case of the
defendant-appellant was that they needed money and hence they
had borrowed the same from the plaintiff/respondent No. 1.
29. The further admission in paragraph ‘15’ by D.W.
1, in categorical terms, that his son, the defendant-appellant
Sanjay Kumar Sharma, had put his signature on Exhibit-1 was
in the capacity as a vendor.
30. In view of such deposition by D.W. 1, one thing is
established that Exhibit-1, i.e., the agreement for sale, was
indeed executed by the defendant-appellant Sanjay Kumar
Sharma in the presence of his father, D.W. 1, and his brother,
Manoj Kumar Sharma, was a witness to the said document,
therefore, the stand taken by the defendant-appellant that the
amount was taken as a loan cannot be sustained.
31. The defendant-appellant, Sanjay Kumar Sharma,
who was examined as D.W. 4 during his cross-examination-in-
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
16/25
chief, has deposed that his father, on account of loss in business
as also for the treatment of the sister of defendant-appellant, was
in need of money and as such, they had taken loan from the
plaintiff/respondent.
32. This oral evidence of D.W. 4 is contrary to the
pleadings made in the written statement, as the defendant-
appellant has specifically pleaded that to meet his legal
necessity, he was in need of money, so he had taken loan from
the plaintiff/respondent. Such a contradictory stand raises
question upon the veracity of the claim of the defendant-
appellant.
33. D.W. 4 in paragraph ‘13’ of his cross-examination
has identified the signature of his father over Exhibit-1, which
has been marked as Exhibit-1/B and he further goes on to admit
that he had written the said document in favor of
plaintiff/respondent No.1, Subodh Kumar Sharma. D.W. 4 has
also admitted his signature and the signatures of his father and
brother over the pages of Exhibit-1, which all would go on to
show that it was only after receiving the part consideration
money on different dates, the said signatures were put and
therefore, there is no question of any loan having been taken by
the defendant-appellant.
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
17/25
34. One of the pleas taken by the defendant-appellant
that he had taken loan and the signatures were taken on the
blank paper and later on, the agreement for sale has been
entered in the said document, falls flat simply on the ground that
on the first page of the said agreement for sale, the defendant-
appellant Sanjay Kumar Sharma has made an endorsement in
his own handwriting that he has gone through the deed and has
understood the content of the same and accepts having received
Rs.1,44,000/-.
35. From perusal of the said Exhibit-1, there is a
noting in the handwriting of D.W.-4, Sanjay Kumar Sharma,
“o”kqy ik;k” this endorsement amply proves that he had received
money in return of some transaction. Had the money been taken
by way of loan, the use of word “o”kqy” would not be there.
36. The learned counsel for the defendant-appellant
has heavily relied upon Exhibit-3, which was brought on record
by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and has contended that the
defendant-appellant had cancelled the agreement for sale and as
such, it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff/respondent to
seek a declaration with regard to the cancellation of the
agreement for sale.
37. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
18/25
a judgment reported in 2025 (3) BLJ 116 (SC) in the case of
Sangeeta Sinha vs. Bhawna Bhardwaj. The reference to such
judgment, in my opinion, is not well-placed, as in the present
case, perusal of Exhibit-3 would show that it does not anywhere
contain that there was a clear notice for cancelling the
agreement for sale, whereas in the referred judgment, there was
a clear-cut notice by the defendant-appellant for cancelling the
agreement and she had returned the money paid in advance by
way of bank draft and post-dated cheque and had also lodged an
FIR against the plaintiff-defendant alleging that the agreement
was prepared by playing fraud.
38. In the present case, though the defendant-
appellant has claimed that he had taken money by way of loan
but he has not challenged the agreement for sale on the ground
of fraud being played upon them by taking advantage of their
signatures put on blank paper initially and then the contents for
the agreement of sale being entered upon them.
39. The case of defendant-appellant further falls flat
on the ground as on one hand he has stated the receiving of
money as a loan and at the same time he is relying upon
Exhibit-3, which is an information for accepting the amount
back from him. This cannot be done simultaneously by the
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
19/25
defendant-appellant, who has to stick to only one pleading as to
whether he had accepted the money as loan or in consideration
to the sale of land.
40. In the opinion of this Court, the issuance of such
so-called cancellation of agreement letter issued by the
defendant-appellant the entire pleading of the defendant-
appellant that the amount was taken as loan is demolished.
41. From perusal of Exhibit-3, one more fact emerges
that there is no reference to cancellation of any agreement for
sale, rather, an offer has been made to return the money. Thus,
the contention of the defendant-appellant that the suit was not
maintainable also is not tenable in law.
42. Taking the evidence of defendants, where
execution of agreement for sale was accepted in a way that they
have not denied their signature over the same and in fact the
father of the appellant has gone to accept that the same was
prepared in his presence and thereafter, out of the total
consideration money of Rs.300,000/-, the defendant-appellant
having accepted almost the entire consideration amount, i.e.,
Rs.2,94,000/- and only Rs.6,000/- was to be paid. Therefore,
when the substantial consideration amount was paid by the
respondent-plaintiff and was admitted by the vendor, therefore,
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
20/25
such payment strongly corroborates the contention of the
plaintiff/respondent and goes on to show his bonafide. Payment
of almost 98% of the consideration amount, which is being
proved by Exhibit-1, strongly stands in support of the case of
the plaintiff/respondent.
43. The case of the plaintiff/respondent was that he
was always ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of
Rs.6,000/- has been taken note of by this court and supported by
the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant/appellant has not
been able to disprove such evidence.
44. At this stage the reliance placed upon by the
learned Counsel for the plaintiff/respondent on the case of P.
Ramasubbamma vs. V. Vijayalakshmi and others reported in
2022 (7) SCC 384 is of importance wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed that once the substantial
consideration amount for sale has been paid and received and
was also admitted by the vendor, then in that case nothing else is
needed to be proved by the plaintiff/respondent.
45. As already observed, the evidence of D.W. 1 and
D.W. 4 clearly depicts that they have admitted that the
defendant-appellant has executed an agreement for sale in favor
of plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and has received 98% of the
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
21/25
consideration amount money. Therefore, nothing else needed to
be proved.
46. From the discussions made hereinabove, the
findings arrived at by the learned trial court, especially with
regard to the issues Nos. IV, V and VI, have been considered
carefully. This court has also examined the oral as well as the
documentary evidence.
47. From perusal of Exhibit-1, one thing is clear that
the same is an agreement for sale and bears the signatures of
vendors at each stage, i.e., on execution and on the acceptance
of the consideration amount. The plaintiff/respondent no.1 case
is that they had paid the majority of amount and had been
requesting for execution of the sale in his favor on receipt of a
meager balance amount, which was not being adhered to,
compelling the plaintiff/respondent no.1 to approach the Court
for specific performance of the contract.
48. It is the specific case of the plaintiff/respondent
no.1 that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract and always requested the defendant-appellant to
execute the absolute sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff’s case that the defendant had
received a sum of Rs.2,94,000/- out of the full consideration
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
22/25
amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, therefore, he being not interested in
getting the sale deed executed, is absolutely unbelievable, as he
had already paid 98% of the entire amount. The willingness and
readiness of the plaintiff/respondent can be seen in the legal
notices sent to the defendant-appellant on 03.06.2005 and
subsequently on other dates, such as 08.08.2007 and 23.08.2007
which have been brought on record by way of Exhibit-2 series.
Therefore, the readiness and willingness of the
plaintiff/respondent stands proved.
49. All the plaintiff's witnesses have supported the
case of the plaintiff/respondent and the documentary evidence
proved on behalf of the plaintiff goes on to show that there was
indeed an agreement for sale in favor of the plaintiff/respondent
No. 1 and hence, this court also finds that the evidence of the
P.Ws. are consistent and cogent on the point of execution of
agreement for sale and acceptance of the consideration amount.
50. This court also finds that the requirement under
Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, of readiness and
willingness of the plaintiff/respondent is also well proved and he
has performed most part of the agreement and was also ready to
perform the essential terms of the contract, i.e., the agreement
for sale dated 10.02.2004 (Exhibit 1).
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
23/25
51. In view of the above, the aforesaid issues Nos. IV,
V and VI have rightly been decided in favor of the
plaintiff/respondent.
52. One more issue raised before this court which
needs to be referred to was the claim of the defendant-appellant
through Exhibit-3. As already observed, there is no averment
with regard to the cancellation of the sale of agreement and only
an offer to return the money back was made does not entitle the
defendant-appellant to unilaterally assume the cancellation of
agreement for sale.
53. It is a settled law that once substantial right has
accrued in favour of the plaintiff/respondent no.1, the contract
(agreement for sale) could not have been rescinded by any
unilateral act and therefore, Exhibit-3, which the defendant-
appellant has relied heavily has no legal efficacy and cannot be
held to be a valid document for cancellation of agreement for
sale.
54. In view of the issue Nos. IV, V and VI being
decided in favour of the plaintiff/respondent no.1, this Court has
no hesitation to concur with the findings of the learned Trial
Court that the suit was maintainable and there was a valid cause
of action for filing of the said suit and the same was also not
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
24/25
barred by the laws of limitation, estoppel, waiver and
acquiescence and therefore, these issues have also been rightly
decided in favour of the plaintiff/respondent.
55. It is also a settled law that once the requirement of
Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is fully satisfied,
there was nothing further to be proved by the plaintiff.
56. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of N.P. Thirugnanam (Dead) By LRS. vs. Dr.
R. Jagan Mohan Rao and others reported in (1995) 5 SCC 115
and K.S. Vidyanadam and Orthers vs. Vairavan reported in
(1997) 3 SCC 1 squarely applies to the facts and circumstances
of the present appeal.
57. This Court being the first Appellate Court has
independently re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. This
Court having minutely perused the impugned judgment, holds
that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based
on proper appreciation of evidence and correct application of
law and no perversity, illegality or misinterpretation/misreading
of evidence has been shown so as to warrant interference under
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure by this Court.
58. Accordingly, the first appeal is dismissed.
Ordered
Patna High Court FA No.102 of 2014 dt.15-05-2026
25/25
59. The judgment and decree dated 22.03.2014 passed
by Sri Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Sub-Judge-V, Patna
City, District Patna, in Title Suit No.199 of 2007 is hereby
affirmed.
60. The defendant-appellant is directed to hand over
the possession in favour of the plaintiff/respondent within thirty
days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 29.04.2026
Uploading Date 18.05.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.