Specific Performance No Longer Discretionary After 2018 Amendment To Specific Relief Act, Court Obliged To Enforce Contract: Allahabad High Court
The Court while upholding decree against seller who resiled from sale, said that registered agreement to sell carries presumption of valid execution; burden lies heavily on executant alleging fraud to rebut it with cogent evidence.
Justice Sandeep Jain, Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that, following the amendment to Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 with effect from October 01, 2018, the relief of specific performance of a contract is no longer a discretionary remedy but one which the Court is statutorily obliged to enforce, subject only to the provisions of Section 11(2), Section 14 and Section 16 of the Act.
The Court dismissed a first appeal filed by a defendant who sought to resile from a registered agreement to sell his residential house, holding that once due execution, consideration, and the plaintiff's continuous readiness and willingness stood proved, the trial court was correct in decreeing specific performance.
The Court further held that a registered document carries a strong presumption of valid execution and genuineness, placing a heavy burden on the party alleging fraud to prove it through clear, cogent and convincing evidence. It found that although the defendant claimed his signatures had been fraudulently obtained on blank papers, he neither lodged any police complaint nor instituted proceedings for cancellation of the agreement, and also failed to examine a material attesting witness, rendering his allegations wholly unsubstantiated.
Justice Sandeep Jain referring to B.Santoshamma and another v. D.Sarala and another (2020) 19 SCC 80 confirmed, “…after the amendment with effect from 1.10.2018, the relief of specific performance of contract is no longer discretionary. The Court is, now obliged to enforce the specific performance of a contract, subject to the provisions of Section 11(2), 14 and 16 of the Specific Relief Act”.
“…since the relief of specific performance is no longer discretionary and even otherwise, there is no fact or circumstance which disentitles the plaintiff from getting the primary relief of specific performance, hence, the trial court has not erred in decreeing the plaintiff's suit for the relief of specific performance of the registered agreement to sell dated 30.12.2019”, the Bench further observed.
Senior Advocate Pramod Jain appeared for the appellant and Advocate Vijay Kumar Ojha appeared for the respondent.
The plaintiff, Ganesh Prasad, filed a suit for specific performance of a registered agreement to sell dated December 30, 2019, concerning a two-storeyed residential house in Bhadohi. He alleged that the defendant, agreed to sell the property for ₹30 lakh, received ₹20 lakh as earnest money by cheque, and failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated requests and a legal notice dated September 11, 2021, while attempting to sell the property to a third party.
The defendant denied executing the agreement, alleging his signatures were fraudulently obtained on blank papers during their silver trading business dealings, and contended that the property's value exceeded ₹2 crore, making the alleged sale consideration implausible.
The trial court, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadohi, Gyanpur, decreed the suit for specific performance on 11.3.2025 in O.S. No. 9 of 2022. The defendant challenged this judgment and decree by way of a first appeal under Section 96 CPC.
The Court found that the defendant, in cross-examination, admitted receiving Rs 20 lakh in his bank account and going to the Sub-Registrar's office on the relevant date, undermining his plea of fraud.
It noted the defendant had earlier executed sale deeds in favour of his brothers and facilitated three sale deeds in his wife's favour, showing familiarity with registration procedure, and had entered into a separate unregistered agreement to sell the very same house to another buyer for Rs 50 lakh in 2021, a fact fatal to his claim that the property was worth Rs 2 crore.
On readiness and willingness, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Syed Dastagir that no specific phraseology is required under Section 16(c), and found that the plaintiff's bank statements demonstrating a maintained balance exceeding Rs 10 lakh, coupled with his legal notice and consistent conduct, satisfied the requirement in spirit and substance.
The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the judgment and decree of the trial court dated March 11, 2025 was affirmed. The defendant-appellant was directed to execute the sale deed of the disputed house within two months from the date of the judgment in favour of the plaintiff-respondent after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs 10 lakh, failing which the plaintiff was held entitled to get the sale deed executed through Court by depositing the balance consideration, in accordance with law.
Cause Title: Tushar Agrawal v. Ganesh Prasad (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:133431)
Appearances:
Appellant: Pramod Jain, Senior Advocate, Shakti Shanker Tiwari, Subhash Chandra Tiwari and Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocates.
Respondent: Vijay Kumar Ojha and Ravish Chandra Srivastava, Advocate.