9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was a concluded contract between the parties on 25.1.1984 at Delhi. 2. Whether the plaintiff could contend that there was an agreement of sale dated 28.4.1984 at Bangalore. 3. Legal principles applicable to suits for specific performance under section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the extent of relief under 'general relief' in suits for specific performance under Order 7 Rule 7 CPC. 4. Whether the plaintiff can get a decree for specific performance of an agreement dated 28.4.1984 said to have been concluded at Bangalore. Detailed Analysis: Point 1: Concluded Contract on 25.1.1984 at Delhi The court found that there was no concluded agreement on 25.1.1984 at Delhi. The suit-notice Ex.P12 dated 2.7.84 clearly stated that the 1st defendant mentioned he still needed to consult his two brothers. Correspondence after 25.1.84 confirmed that the sale consideration was not finalized at Delhi. The High Court's finding that there was no concluded agreement on 25.1.1984 at Delhi was deemed correct. Point 2: Agreement of Sale on 28.4.1984 at Bangalore The plaintiff did not amend the plaint to plead an agreement dated 28.4.1984 at Bangalore when given the opportunity by the High Court. Therefore, the plaintiff could not seek relief for specific performance of an agreement allegedly concluded at Bangalore on 28.4.1984. This point was held against the appellant. Points 3 and 4: Legal Principles and Relief under General Relief The court discussed the discretion under section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, emphasizing that the relief for specific performance is discretionary and governed by sound judicial principles. The evidence and proof of the agreement must be absolutely clear and certain. The court cited various precedents, including Madamsetty Satyanarayana vs. G. Yellogi Rao and Sardar Singh vs. Smt. Krishna Devi, affirming that specific performance requires a higher degree of certainty in the terms of the agreement. Point 3: The court emphasized that the plaintiff cannot abandon the case made in the plaint and seek relief based on evidence not pleaded. Specific performance suits require strict adherence to the pleaded case. The court referred to Gonesh Ram vs. Ganpat Rai and Md. Ziaul Haque vs. Calcutta Vyapar Prat1sthan, highlighting that variance between pleading and proof is not permissible in specific performance suits. Point 4: Even if an agreement dated 28.4.1984 at Bangalore was proved, the plaintiff's refusal to amend the plaint to seek relief based on such an agreement was detrimental. The evidence did not support the existence of a fresh agreement on 28.4.1984 at Bangalore. The court concluded that there was no fresh agreement at Bangalore on 28.4.1984 and that the plaintiff's case was based on a concluded agreement on 25.1.1984 at Delhi, which was not proved. Conclusion: The High Court's exercise of discretion in refusing specific performance was consistent with established principles. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
|
