Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilipsingh vs Sanjeev Lunkad on 19 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 1 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
FIRST APPEAL No.258 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT
SANJEEV LUNKAD ...Appellant and DILIP SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents FIRST APPEAL No.183 of 2017 DILIP SINGH AND OTHERS ...Appellants and SANJEEV LUNKAD AND OTHERS ...Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance: In F.A. No.258/2017 Neither the appellant is present nor his counsel, who is on record in spite of accommodating him to advance the arguments for last two months, he has not come-forward to advance the arguments whereas the appellants in another appeal No.183/2017 are the respondents in appeal No.258/2017 pressing for the disposal of these appeals.
Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 7.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 2 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 Respondents No.8 and 9 are the proforma parties, the respective counsels stated treated to be heard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance : - In F.A. No.183/2017 Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for appellants No.1 to 7. Neither the respondent No.1 present nor his counsel, who is on record to advance the arguments in spite of accommodating him for last two months, he has not come-forward to advance the arguments, whereas the respondents in appeal No.258/2017 are the appellants in appeal No.183/2017 pressing for the disposal of these appeals.
(Both the appeals filed against the common judgment of learned trial Court in RCSA No.2000021/2014 dated 23.03.2017 by District Judge, Dewas.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on 02.05.2025
Pronounced on 19.05.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally, the plaintiff (Sanjeev Lunkad) filed a suit in RCSA No.2000021/2014 against Dilip Singh and 8 Ors. for specific performance, possession and permanent injunction or to grant of alternative relief to refund the amount of Rs.40,52,700/- with interest @ 18% per annum, the defendants No.1 to 7 have filed counter claim seeking declaration that the sauda-chitthi dated 03.02.2008 and agreement of sale dated 22.02.2008 are declared to be void.
The learned trial Court dismissed the suit in respect of specific performance, possession and permanent injunction and awarded to get partial amount of sale price (in addition to the earnest money of Rs.1,51,000/-), the counter claim of the defendants is dismissed as barred by limitation and further granted the alternative relief directing the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 3 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 defendants No.1 to 7 shall pay the amount of Rs.39,01,700/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of cancellation of contract dated 22.08.2008 (Ex.P-2) till the date of payment.
Challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2017 in RCSA No.2000021/2014, the plaintiff / appellant filed first appeal No.258/2017 seeking relief to allow the appeal and to set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2017.
Defendants / respondents No.1 to 7 filed first appeal No.183/2017 to allow the appeal to the extent of directing to refund the amount of part consideration of Rs.39,01,700/- with interest @ 12% per annum to the plaintiff by defendants No.1 to 7 be set aside.
COMMON JUDGMENT First Appeal Nos.258/2017 and 183/2017
01. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 96 of CPC, appellant / plaintiff filed First Appeal No.258/2017 and the defendants / respondents No.1 to 7 filed another First Appeal No.183/2017 calling in question the validity, legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2017 passed by learned District Judge, Dewas (M.P.) in RCSA No.2000021/2014 dismissing the suit for specific performance, possession and permanent injunction partially to get partial amount of sale price of Rs.1,51,000/-, which was paid to the defendants and also granted alternative relief of directing the defendants No.1 to 7 to pay an amount of Rs.39,01,700/- with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of cancellation of contract 22.08.2008 till the date of payment, and the relief of counter claim filed by the defendants is dismissed as barred by limitation and directed the parties to bear their own costs.
02. Since these appeals No.258/2017 and No.183/2017 are arising out of the judgment in RCSA No.2000021/2014 dated 23.03.2017, they have been Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 4 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 heard together and are being decided by this common judgment on merits in accordance with law.
03. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned trial Court in RCSA No.2000021/2014.
04. The necessary facts and legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties are stated herein with a view to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and decree in dismissing the suit for specific performance, possession and permanent injunction and granted relief to get the partial amount in addition to the earnest money of Rs.1,51,000/- and alternative relief of refund of amount of Rs.39,01,700/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of cancellation of contract 22.08.2008 till the date of payment and the counter claim filed by the defendants / respondents dismissed and requires to be examined by following these appeals.
05. In this judgment for the sake of brevity, I would like to refer to the ranking of the parties as assigned in the plaint presented before the Court. Since there is incongruence in mentioning exhibits in judgment of the learned trial Court, I will refer to the documents as per annexures presented along with these appeals.
06. The facts leading to the present appeals are in a nutshell are as under :
(i) The plaintiff (Sanjeev Lunkad) filed a suit against the defendants No.1 to 7 seeking specific performance, possession and permanent injunction or alternative relief to refund of amount of Rs.40,52,700/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment, further averred that the defendants No.1 to 7 are the owners of the subject property / schedule property, which is free from encumbrances proposed to sell the property admeasuring 27 bighas (disputed land) covering an area 8.183 hectares situated in the land in survey No.183 of Village Bilawali, Tehsil and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 5 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 District Dewas for Patwari Halka No.17. The defendants offered to sell the property and after negotiations, entered into agreement dated 22.02.2008 for total sale consideration of Rs.4,05,27,000/-, plaintiff paid Rs.1,51,000/-
through cheque as earnest money through sauda-chitthi dated 03.02.2008 to the defendants at the time of executing the agreement of sale dated 22.02.2008, the plaintiff paid partial amount of Rs.39,01,700/- from the sale price to the defendants on 27.03.2008, the remaining part of 15% of the sale price of Rs.60,79,050/- was to be paid on or before 28.03.2008, the remaining balance of Rs.3,03,95,250/- to be paid in between 22.02.2008 to 20.08.2008 respectively, plaintiff did not pay the remaining amount of sale consideration to the defendants, as per the contract dated 22.02.2008 as defendant No.2 did not sign on agreement of sale, due to which the plaintiff did not give cheque No.437303 of Rs.30,00,000/- and another cheque No.437304 of Rs.30,79,050/- to the defendants as drafted on 28.03.2008, further averred that the defendants have to submit No Objection Certificate (NOC) on or before 28.03.2008 to release the disputed land from the Scheme of Dewas Development Authority, another reason that the defendants did not get the signature of defendant No.2 (Veer Singh) on the agreement of sale on or before 20.08.2008, further averred that the defendants with an intention to embezzle the amount given by the plaintiff gave a false notice dated 22.08.2008 for cancellation of sale agreement in spite of plaintiff was ready to pay the balance sale consideration to get the sale deed executed, further averred that defendants themselves have not complied with the terms of contract and delayed in execution of sale deed even after receiving part of the sale amount of Rs.40,52,700/- with an intention to sell the disputed property to third parties as such the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, possession and permanent injunction. If the Court rejects the relief of specific performance, then the alternative Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 6 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 relief of refund of amount of Rs.40,52,700/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment made by him to the defendants be granted.
07. Defendants No.1 to 7 filed written statement containing inter alia that the allegations made in the plaint are false, further averred that the plaintiff himself breached the contract by not paying the remaining amount of sale price to the defendants. Further averred that there is no need to obtain NOC from the Dewas Development Authority as the disputed land was not included in the Scheme, there was only a proposal, the Government had not given the approval. Further averred that the defendant No.2 (Veer Singh) was ready to sign on the agreement, but the plaintiff did not make the payment of remaining part of consideration. The defendants had no option except issuance of notice dated 22.08.2008, cancelled the agreement of sale dated 22.02.2008 and forfeited the earnest money. Further averred that the plaintiff had not replied to the said notice, the defendants have filed the counter claim to declare sauda-chitti dated 03.02.2008, the agreement of sale dated 22.02.2008 to be declared as null and void. The suit presented by the plaintiff is void and barred by limitation. The plaintiff filed a reply to the counter claim stated that the same may be rejected as the claim of the defendants is time barred.
08. Defendant No.8 (Dewas Development Authority) filed written statement averred that this defendant is not aware of the dispute between plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 7. Further averred that the Dewas Development Authority was unnecessary made a party to the suit. Further averred that the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief against this defendant. It is further averred that the Dewas Development Authority had decided to include the land of the village Bilawali in the Scheme in the meeting held on 15.05.2007, and in the meeting held on 26.02.2009, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 7 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 Board has unanimously decided to include some of the lands of the village Bilawali in the scheme, but the disputed land in survey No.183 is not included in the residential or commercial Scheme of the Dewas Development Authority. This defendant has no ownership or possession of the suit land and the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
09. On the basis on the pleadings and documents on record, the learned trial Court framed the followings issues:-
"(1) Whether, the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to comply with the agreement dated 22.02.2008 regarding the disputed land with defendants No.1 to 6 ?
(2) Whether, the plaintiff is entitled to get part amount of sale price of the suit land amounting to Rs.40,52,700/-
paid by him to defendants No.1 to 6 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum in case the specific performance is not given to him ?
(3) Whether, the sauda-chitti dated 03.02.2008 and agreement of sale dated 22.02.2008 regarding the disputed land have become ineffective due to non-
compliance of the conditions by the plaintiff as per the agreement made with the defendants No.1 to 7 ?
(4) Whether, the suit and counter claim is filed within the period of limitation ?
(5) Relief and costs."
10. During the course of trial, PW-1 / plaintiff (Sanjeev Lunkad) and PW-2 / mediator (Ram Prasad) were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-3 were got marked on behalf of the plaintiff. Kailash Singh / defendant No.4 examined as DW-1, Sachin Singh / attestor of Ex.P-1 (agreement of sale) examined as DW-2 and Pradeep Kumar Pathak (Assistant Engineer of Dewas Development Authority) examined as DW-3 and Exs.D-1 to D-5 were got marked on behalf of defendants.
11. According to the learned trial Court, issue No.1, not proved / not certified, issue No.2, the amount of Rs.39,01,700/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the cancellation of contract dated 22.08.2008 till the date of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 8 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 payment. Issue No.3, yes / proved. Issue No.4, suit is within the period of limitation but counter claim is barred by limitation. Issue No.5, suit decreed partly as per the Para No.31 of the judgment. Resultantly, the plaintiff is not entitled to get relief for specific performance, possession and permanent injunction, but he is entitled to get partial amount of sale price (in addition to the earnest money of Rs.1,51,000/-), further directed the defendants No.1 to 7 to pay Rs.39,01,700/- to the plaintiff as a part of sale consideration with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of cancellation of contract dated 22.08.2008 till the date of payment, further observed that the counter claim filed by the defendants is dismissed as barred by limitation.
12. Feeling aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2017 of learned trial Court in RCSA No.2000021/2014, first appeal No.258/2017 has been filed by plaintiff (Sanjeev Lunkad) in the suit / appellant herein and another first appeal No.183/2017 has been filed by defendants No.1 to 7 in the suit / respondents No.1 to 7 herein respectively.
13. As per note-sheet dated 20.11.2024, the advocate, who appeared on behalf of the appellant was no more and prayed time to engage advocate. When the matter listed on 05.03.2025 there was no representation on behalf of the appellant and counsel for the respondents pressing for disposal of the appeal. On 18.03.2025, the appellant party in person present and had sought time to engage the advocate, considering his request, the matter was posted on 24.03.2025, 25.03.2025 and 27.03.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. On 01.04.2025 the appellant party in person present and had sought time to engage the advocate, considering his request, posted the matter on 24.04.2025 there was no representation on behalf of appellant and the matter was posted under caption "dismissal". On 29.04.2025 there was no representation on behalf of the appellant and on 02.05.2025 there Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 9 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 was no representation on behalf of the appellant. In all the above adjournments, neither appellant present nor sought any accommodation on his behalf by advocates, who are on record in appeal No.258/2017, appellants in appeal No.183/2017 pressing for disposal of both the appeals as the respondents in appeal No.258/2017 are the farmers and they requested to decide the appeals forthwith and pressing for disposal. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the respondents treated to be heard on behalf of the appellant in appeal No.258/2017.
14. It is settled principle of law that a right to file first appeal against the decree under Section 96 of the Code is a valuable legal right of the litigant. The jurisdiction of the first Appellate Court while hearing the first appeal is very wide like that of the Trial Court and it is open to the appellants in both the appeals to attack all findings of fact or/and of law in first appeal. It is the duty of the first Appellate Court to appreciate the entire evidence and arrive at its own independent conclusion, for reasons assigned, either of affirmance or difference. Similarly, the powers of first appellate Court while deciding the first appeal or indeed well defined by various pronouncements of Apex Court and are, therefore, no more res integra. It is apposite to take note of the law on this issue. The first appellate Court's jurisdiction has to be decided in accordance with law on merits.
15. Shri Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to 7 / respondents herein in appeal No.258/2017 and appellants in appeal No.183/2017 submitted arguments that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract, further submitted that reasons mentioned in the plaint that the defendant No.2 did not sign on agreement of sale and defendants did not obtain NOC from the Dewas Development Authority is not tenable, baseless and futile. Further submitted that the subject land is not covered either in residential or Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 10 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 commercial Scheme of the Dewas Development Authority, the same is admitted by defendant No.8 in the written statement. Further submitted that the plaintiff did not pay the balance sale consideration and could not perform his part of contract, defendants issued a notice on 22.08.2008 for cancellation of agreement of sale dated 22.02.2008, further submitted that the plaintiff himself admitted the receipt of notice (Ex.P-2) and fact that he has not given reply, the suit for specific performance is not maintainable since the plaintiff has not sought for declaratory relief to declare that the termination / cancellation of agreement of sale is bad in law, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance. In the absence of prayer of declaratory relief that the termination / cancellation of agreement of sale is bad in law and the suit for specific performance is not maintainable. Further submitted that the plaintiff has not expressed readiness and willingness to perform his contract prior to the issuance of notice Ex.P-2, further submitted that the defendants approached the sub-registrar office on 21.08.2008, submitted an application and obtained receipt under Exs.D-1 and D-2 with an intention to receive the balance sale consideration to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff did not appear before the sub-registrar office on 21.08.2008, further submitted that the plaintiff is a habit of paying meagre amount to the farmers, obtaining agreement of sale from them without performing his part of contract, further submitted that the learned trial Court mentioned in the judgment that plaintiff filed 10 suits for specific performance, which were dismissed for non-compliance of terms and conditions of the agreement, further submitted that the plaintiff must also show the availability of the funds to perform the contract, further submitted that in spite of receipt of notice (Ex.P-2), plaintiff has not issued reply, further submitted that the judgment of the learned trial Court is based on the facts, cannot be termed as perverse and dismissal of suit is well Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 11 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 reasoned and needs no interference by this Court, further submitted that the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration on or before 20.08.2008, as per clause 17 of the agreement of sale (Ex.P-1), the plaintiff has not complied with the terms and conditions of agreement of sale, the advance sale consideration paid by the plaintiff has to be forfeited, further submitted that the judgment of the learned trial Court to the extent of granting alternative relief of refund of amount is not in accordance with law and is to be set aside, prays to allow the appeal No.183/2017 and dismiss the appeal No.258/2017.
16. After hearing the elaborate arguments and after perusal of the impugned judgment, the following points would arise for determination of this Court :
"(i). Whether, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking decree of specific performance against the defendants No.1 to 7 in respect of suit schedule property without seeking a declaratory relief with respect to termination of contract vide notice dated 22.08.2008 rescinding the contract, is maintainable in law ?
(ii). Is the learned trial Court justified in dismissing the relief of specific performance on the basis of agreement of sale dated 22.02.2008 and the defendants are liable to be refund of earnest money of Rs.39,01,700/-
with interest @ 12 % per annum ?
(iii). Is the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court needs any interference ?"
17. Coming to the appreciation of the evidence, it is no doubt from the experience and knowledge of human affairs depending upon facts and circumstances of each case and regard must be had to the credibility of the witness, probative value of the documents, relationship of the parties actions and inactions, lapse of time if any in proof of the events and occurrences, from consistency to the material on record to drawn wherever required the necessary inferences and conclusions from the broad probabilities and preponderances, from the overall view of entire case to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 12 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 judge as to any fact is proved or not proved or disproved and the conclusions arrived by the trial Court are sustainable or not. Since all the above points are interrelated to each other they are being dealt together.
18. The undisputed facts as per the pleadings and evidence are that the defendants No.1 to 7 are the owners of the subject land in survey No.183 of Village Bilawali, Teshil and District Dewas covering an area 8.183 hectares in Patwari Halka No.17, it is undisputed fact that the defendants No.1 to 7 offered to sell the subject land to the plaintiff, after negotiations, plaintiff agreed to purchase 27 bighas of disputed land i.e. 8.183 hectares for total sale consideration of Rs.4,05,27,000/- and paid Rs.1,51,000/- as an earnest money to the defendants through a sauda-chitti dated 03.02.2008, it is also undisputed fact that the plaintiff paid partial amount of Rs.39,01,700/- under agreement of sale dated 27.02.2008, further undisputed fact that the plaintiff has to pay 15% of sale price Rs.60,79,050/- on or before 28.03.2008. It is undisputed fact that the rest of the balance sale consideration Rs.3,3,95,250/- was to be paid in between 22.02.2008 to 20.08.2008 and whatever may be the reasons, the plaintiff did not pay the balance amount as per the clause 17 of agreement of sale. It is undisputed fact that the defendants immediately acted upon as per the clause 17, issued a legal notice dated 22.08.2008 for cancellation of agreement of sale and forfeited the earnest money, it is also undisputed fact that the plaintiff admitted the receipt of notice dated 22.08.2008 and admittedly, he has not issued a reply, further undisputed fact that defendants approached the sub- registrar office on 21.08.2008, submitted an application and marked their presence and as per Ex.D-1 paid Rs.50/- and got receipt Ex.D-2 for the purpose of execution of sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration. It is further undisputed fact that the plaintiff failed to appear before sub- registrar office on 21.08.2008 with balance sale consideration, it is Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 13 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 undisputed fact that the plaintiff neither appeared before the sub-registrar office on 21.08.2008 nor issued a reply notice to Ex.P-2 expressing readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract, if plaintiff had issued the notice to the (Ex.P-2) dated 22.08.2008 the case is otherwise, thus the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court are on sound lines.
19. In view of the undisputed facts referred (supra), this Court should consider whether the plaintiff / appellant has proved and entitled for specific performance, possession and permanent injunction sought for.
20. Before accepting the evidence and documents filed by respective parties, the appeals are one under Section 96 of the CPC, the scope of Section 96 of CPC is to be considered. While dealing with the scope of first appeals, three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By LRs1 held as follows:
"15.........the appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate court. The task of an appellate court affirming the findings of the trial court is an easier one. The appellate court agreeing with the view of the trial court need not restate the effect of the evidence or reiterate the reasons given by the trial court; expression of general agreement with reasons given by the court, decision of which is under appeal, would ordinarily suffice (See Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary [AIR 1967 SC 1124] ). We would, however, like to sound a note of caution. Expression of general agreement with the findings recorded in the judgment under appeal should not be a device or camouflage adopted by the appellate court for shirking the duty cast on it........"
21. In case of H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith2, Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that:
1. (2001) 3 SCC 179
2. (2005) 10 SCC 243 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 14 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 "3.The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons.
Unfortunately, the High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording the finding regarding title. The order of the High Court is cryptic and the same is without assigning any reason."
22. The said principle was also reiterated in [SBI v. Emmsons International Ltd.3] Thus, the first appellate court is required to address itself to all the aspects and decide the case by ascribing reasons.
23. Readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiff is a condition precedent for granting relief of grant of specific performance. The said circumstance is material and relevant and the Court while granting or refusing to grant the relief is required to consider the same. To adjudicate whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the Court must take into consideration the conduct of plaintiff prior and subsequent to filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances. The amount of consideration, which the plaintiff had to pay to defendant must be proved to be available in necessity. Right from the date of execution till the date of decree, plaintiff must prove that he is ready and always been willing to perform his part of contract.
24. Readiness refers to financial capacity and willingness refers to conduct of the plaintiff wanting the performance. Readiness means capacity of the plaintiff to perform contract including financial position to pay the purchase price. For determining his willingness to perform his part of contract the conduct has to be properly scrutinized. The conduct of the plaintiff must be consistent.
3 (2011) 12 SCC 174 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 289 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 15 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017
25. In the case of J.P. Builders Vs. A.Ramadas Rao 4, a two-judge Bench of this Court observed that Section 16(c) mandates 'readiness and willingness' of the plaintiff and is a condition precedent to obtain the relief of specific performance. The Court held :
"25. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 mandates "readiness and willingness" on the part of the plaintiff and it is a condition precedent for obtaining relief of grant of specific performance. It is also clear that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must allege and prove a continuous "readiness and willingness" to perform the contract on his part from the date of the contract. The onus is on the plaintiff [...]
27. It is settled law that even in the absence of specific plea by the opposite party, it is the mandate of the statute that the plaintiff has to comply with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and when there is non-compliance with this statutory mandate, the court is not bound to grant specific performance and is left with no other alternative but to dismiss the suit. It is also clear that readiness to perform must be established throughout the relevant points of time. "Readiness and willingness" to perform the part of the contract has to be determined/ascertained from the conduct of the parties."
26. In His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji Vs. Sita Ram Thapar5, a two-judge Bench of this Court observed that 'readiness' means the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which would include the financial position to pay the purchase price. To ascertain 'willingness', the conduct of the plaintiff has to be properly scrutinised. The Court noted :
"2. There is a distinction between readiness to perform the contract and willingness to perform the contract. By readiness may be meant the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which includes his financial position to pay the purchase price. For determining his willingness to perform his part of the contract, the conduct has to be properly scrutinised. [...] The factum of readiness and willingness to perform the plaintiff's part of the contract is to be adjudged with reference to the conduct of the party and the attending circumstances. The court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was ready and was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The facts of this case would amply demonstrate that the petitioner/plaintiff was not ready nor had the capacity to perform his part of the contract as he had no financial capacity to pay 4 (2011) 1 SCC 429 5 (1996) 4 SCC 526 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 16 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 the consideration in cash as contracted and intended to bide for the time which disentitles him as time is of the essence of the contract."
(emphasis is mine)
27. In view of the judgments referred (supra), the first appeals have to be decided on the basis of issues and evidence led by the parties before recording the findings of fact taken by the learned trial Court should be examined.
28. Now the learned trial Court dealt the issues in detail and gave findings that the plaintiff has to plead and prove his readiness and willingness to perform part of contract under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff has to show that he has performed the condition of contract, further learned trial Court observed that the plaintiff never gave any notice to the defendants to get the land demarcated, the defendants were never informed by the plaintiff that if the defendant No.2 (Veer Singh) signed in the agreement, plaintiff is ready to pay the remaining amount of the sale price, further observed in cross examination, PW-2 (who played as a role of mediator) admitted that plaintiff filed 10 suits against various farmers for specific performance, all the suits were pending, in all the above cases, he has not paid the full amount of consideration, further observed that plaintiff has not produced any reliable evidence that he had capacity to pay the remaining amount of sale consideration in the year 2008. Further observed that PW-1 admitted in the cross examination that he did not produce any evidence to show that he arranged the funds for getting sale deed and in Step No.34, he admitted that he did not give any reply to the Ex.P-2 to the defendants. The learned trial Court observed that defendants No.1 to 7 appeared before the sub-registrar on 21.08.2008 to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute a sale deed, they got receipt of Rs.50/-, submitted application under Ex.D-1 and receipt is D-2. Further observed that defendant No.1 to 7 were ready to execute the sale deed if the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 17 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 plaintiff has paid the balance sale consideration to perform a contract. In the light of the above observations of the learned trial Court, the court must also examine the conduct of the plaintiff that whether he is a bona fide purchaser of the property under agreement of sale dated 22.02.2008 ready and willing to perform his part of contract or not.
29. A judgment reported in the case of Shenbagam vs K.K. Rathinavel 6 the conduct of the plaintiff must be consist and the foundation of the suit for specific performance lies in ascertaining whether the plaintiff has come to the court with clean hands and has, through his conduct demonstrated that he has always been willing to perform the contract. Paras 26 and 36 read as follows :
"26. In evaluating whether the respondent was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the contract, it is not only necessary to view whether he had the financial capacity to pay the balance consideration, but also assess his conduct throughout the transaction.
36. True enough, generally speaking, time is not of the essence in an agreement for the sale of immoveable property. In deciding whether to grant the remedy of specific performance, specifically in suits relating to sale of immovable property, the courts must be cognizant of the conduct of the parties, the escalation of the price of the suit property, and whether one party will unfairly benefit from the decree. The remedy provided must not cause injustice to a party, specifically when they are not at fault. In the present case, three decades have passed since the agreement to sell was entered into between the parties. The price of the suit property would undoubtedly have escalated. Given the blemished conduct of the respondent-plaintiff in indicating his willingness to perform the contract, we decline in any event to grant the remedy of specific performance of the contract. However, we order a refund of the consideration together with interest at 6% per annum. "
30. In the light of the above judgment cited (supra), which ruled out that the specific performance of contract requires readiness and willingness, the plaintiff must aver in the plaint showing readiness and willingness in accordance with the terms of agreement. As per Section 20 of Specific 6 2022 (3) MPLJ 473 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 18 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 Relief Act, it is held that the relief of specific performance lies the discretion in the Court and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. The discretion to grant specific performance is not exercised that the contract is not equal and fair, admittedly, the conduct of the plaintiff is fairly established that it is a habit of obtaining agreement of sale from the farmers by paying meagre amount and to cause harass them without paying balance consideration to the vendors and PW-1 and PW-2 have categorically admitted this fact. In the light of the above averments, the findings of the Court below are that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform the part of contract by issuing notice or at least reply to the notice (Ex.P-2) clearly shows that the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract and is not entitled for the relief of specific performance and the trial Court, therefore, rightly held that the plaintiff who failed to show his readiness and willingness in true spirit do not deserve the equitable relief of specific performance. The conduct of the plaintiff clearly manifested that he did not show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract by paying a balance sale consideration. The decree of specific performance of contract is an equitable relief and hence, a party who seeks equity must exhibit equity by showing readiness and willingness. The readiness means a capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which includes his financial position, the willingness relates the conduct of the plaintiff.
31. In the instant case, the plaintiff is a habit of paying meagre amounts to the farmers and obtained agreements and later he could not pay the balance sale consideration and used to file suits against the innocent farmers and the fact remains the PW-1 and PW-2 themselves admitted this fact that itself shows that the plaintiff has no financial position to perform the contract. In my considered view, he was not entitled to claim Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 19 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 discretionary relief of specific performance. The Court can refuse to grant such discretionary relief. Having regard to the above discussion in view of the settled proposition of law discussed (supra), this Court has no ground to interfere with the well articulated judgment of the learned trial Court, this Court cannot substantiate its own opinion unless the findings of the Court manifestly perverse and contrary to the evidence on record and the finding of fact recorded by the learned trial Court while rejecting the specific performance is not perverse.
32. With regard to the absence of seeking declaratory relief whether the original suit filed by the plaintiff seeking decree of specific performance against the defendants No.1 to 7 in respect of suit schedule property without seeking a declaratory relief with respect to termination of agreement of sale vide notice dated 22.08.2008, rescinding the contract, is maintainable in law.
33. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not paid the part of the sale consideration in terms of the agreement of sale, he has to pay 15% of sale consideration of Rs.60,79,050/- on or before 28.03.2008 and the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,03,95,250/- has to pay in between 22.02.2008 to 20.08.2008, till the above period, the plaintiff has not paid the balance amount and get the sale deed and immediately the defendants issued notice dated 22.08.2008 for cancellation of agreement of sale dated 22.02.2008, the agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff was terminated he had not sought declaratory relief to declare that the termination of agreement in the original suit is bad and law and therefore, the suit for specific performance is not maintainable. A decision reported in the case of I.S. Sikandar (Dead) by LRs. Vs. K. Subramani and Ors7. Paras 37 and 38 read as follows :
"37. As could be seen from the prayer sought for in the original suit, the plaintiff has not sought for declaratory relief to declare the 7 (2013) 15 SCC 27 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 20 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 termination of Agreement of Sale as bad in law. In the absence of such prayer by the plaintiff the original suit filed by him before the trial court for grant of decree for specific performance in respect of the suit schedule property on the basis of Agreement of Sale and consequential relief of decree for permanent injunction is not maintainable in law.
38. Therefore, we have to hold that the relief sought for by the plaintiff for grant of decree for specific performance of execution of sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in his favour on the basis of non existing Agreement of Sale is wholly unsustainable in law..... "
34. In the present case, the plaintiff did not perform of part of contract within the extended period mentioned in the legal notice (Ex.P-2), the agreement of sale was terminated on 22.08.2008 and thus, due to the termination of agreement of sale between the plaintiff and the defendants, he should seek declaration that the termination of agreement of sale is bad in law, but in the present suit, the plaintiff has not sought for declaration.
35. Another decision reported in the case of Sangita Sinha vs Bhawana Bhardwaj and Ors.8. Paras 24 to 27 read as follows :
"ABSENT A PRAYER FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF THAT CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENT IS BAD IN LAW, A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.
24. This Court further finds that the seller had admittedly issued a letter dated 7th February 2008 cancelling the Agreement to Sell dated 25th January 2008, prior to the filing of the subject suit on 5th May 2008. Even though the demand drafts enclosed with the letter dated 07th February, 2008 were subsequently encashed in July, 2008, yet this Court is of the view that it was incumbent upon the Respondent No. 1- buyer to seek a declaratory relief that the said cancellation is bad in law and not binding on parties for the reason that existence of a valid agreement is sine qua non for the grant of relief of specific performance.
25. This Court in I.S. Sikandar (Dead) by LRs. vs. K. Subramani and Others, (2013) 15 SCC 27 has held that in absence of a prayer for a declaratory relief that the termination of the agreement is bad in law, the suit for specific performance of that agreement is not maintainable. Though subsequently, this Court in A. Kanthamani vs. Nasreen Ahmed, (2017) 4 SCC 654 has held that the declaration of law in I.S. Sikander (Dead) by LRs. vs. K. Subramani (supra) regarding non- maintainability of the suit in the absence of a challenge to letter of 8 2025 Live Law (SC) 378 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 21 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 termination is confined to the facts of the said case, yet the aforesaid issue has been recently considered in R. Kandasamy (Since Dead) and Others vs. T.R.K. Sarawathy and Another (supra) authored by brother Justice Dipankar Datta and the conflict between the judgment of I.S. Sikander (Dead) by LRs. vs. K. Subramani (supra) and A. Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed (supra) has been deliberated upon. In R. Kandasamy (Since Dead) and Others vs. T.R.K. Sarawathy and Another (supra), it has been clarified that the appellate court would not be precluded from examining whether the jurisdictional fact exists for grant of relief of specific performance, notwithstanding the fact that the trial Court omitted or failed to frame an issue on maintainability of the suit. The relevant portion of the judgment in R. Kandasamy (Since Dead) and Others vs. T.R.K. Sarawathy and Another (supra) is reproduced herein-below:
"25. What follows from A. Kanthamani (supra) is that unless an issue as to maintainability is framed by the Trial Court, the suit cannot be held to be not maintainable at the appellate stage only because appropriate declaratory relief has not been prayed.
xxx xxx xxx
43. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawan vs. Shaw Bros, (1992) 1 SCC 534, an interesting discussion on 'jurisdictional fact' is found in the concurring opinion of Hon'ble R. M. Sahai, J. (as His Lordship then was). It reads:
"19.......What, then, is an error in respect of jurisdictional fact? A jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non- existence of which depends assumption or refusal to assume jurisdiction by a court, tribunal or an authority. In Black's Legal Dictionary it is explained as a fact which must exist before a court can properly assume jurisdiction of a particular case. Mistake of fact in relation to jurisdiction is an error of jurisdictional fact. No statutory authority or tribunal can assume jurisdiction in respect of subject matter which the statute does not confer on it and if by deciding erroneously the fact on which jurisdiction depends the court or tribunal exercises the jurisdiction then the order is vitiated. Error of jurisdictional fact renders the order ultra vires and bad (Wade, Administrative Law. In Raza Textiles (1973) 1 SCC 633, it was held that a court or tribunal cannot confer jurisdiction on itself by deciding a jurisdictional fact wrongly.
(Emphasis supplied) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 22 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017
44. Borrowing wisdom from the aforesaid passage, our deduction is this. An issue of maintainability of a suit strikes at the root of the proceedings initiated by filing of the plaint as per requirements of Order VII Rule 1, CPC. If a suit is barred by law, the trial court has absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain and try it. However, even though a given case might not attract the bar envisaged by section 9, CPC, it is obligatory for a trial court seized of a suit to inquire and ascertain whether the jurisdictional fact does, in fact, exist to enable it (the trial court) to proceed to trial and consider granting relief to the plaintiff as claimed. No higher court, much less the Supreme Court, should feel constrained to interfere with a decree granting relief on the specious ground that the parties were not put specifically on notice in respect of a particular line of attack/defence on which success/failure of the suit depends, more particularly an issue touching the authority of the trial court to grant relief if the 'jurisdictional fact' imperative for granting relief had not been satisfied. It is fundamental, as held in Shrisht Dhawan (supra), that assumption of jurisdiction/refusal to assume jurisdiction would depend on existence of the jurisdictional fact. Irrespective of whether the parties have raised the contention, it is for the trial court to satisfy itself that adequate evidence has been led and all facts including the jurisdictional fact stand proved for relief to be granted and the suit to succeed. This is a duty the trial court has to discharge in its pursuit for rendering substantive justice to the parties, irrespective of whether any party to the lis has raised or not. If the jurisdictional fact does not exist, at the time of settling the issues, notice of the parties must be invited to the trial court's prima facie opinion of non- existent jurisdictional fact touching its jurisdiction. However, failure to determine the jurisdictional fact, or erroneously determining it leading to conferment of jurisdiction, would amount to wrongful assumption of jurisdiction and the resultant order liable to be branded as ultra vires and bad.
45. Should the trial court not satisfy itself that the jurisdictional fact for grant of relief does exist, nothing prevents the court higher in the hierarchy from so satisfying itself. It is true that the point of maintainability of a suit has to looked only through the prism of section 9, CPC, and the court can rule on such point either upon framing of an issue or even prior thereto if Order VII Rule 11 (d) thereof is applicable. In a fit and proper case, notwithstanding omission of the trial court to frame an issue touching jurisdictional fact, the higher court would Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 23 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 be justified in pronouncing its verdict upon application of the test laid down in Shrisht Dhawan (supra).
46. In this case, even though no issue as to maintainability of the suit had been framed in course of proceedings before the Trial Court, there was an issue as to whether the Agreement is true, valid and enforceable which was answered against the sellers. Obviously, owing to dismissal of the suit, the sellers did not appeal. Nevertheless, having regard to our findings on the point as to whether the buyer was 'ready and willing' we do not see the necessity of proceeding with any further discussion on the point of jurisdictional fact here."
26. Since in the present case, the seller had issued a letter dated 07th February, 2008 cancelling the agreement to sell prior to the institution of the suit, the same constitutes a jurisdictional fact as till the said cancellation is set aside, the respondent is not entitled to the relief of specific performance.
27. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that absent a prayer for declaratory relief that termination / cancellation of the agreement is bad in law, a suit for specific performance is not maintainable ."
36. In the light of judgment referred (supra), it is very aptly applicable to the present set of facts of this case, once the agreement of sale was cancelled by defendants in Ex.P-2 notice plaintiff must seek declaratory relief that the termination / cancellation of agreement of sale is bad in law. In the absence of above declaratory relief, the suit for specific performance is not maintainable. PW-1 himself admitted that he received notice (Ex.P-2) dated 22.08.2008 issued by defendants, he has not given reply in view of the admission made by him, the relief sought in the plaint for specific performance in the absence of declaratory relief, the suit is not maintainable. Even assuming for sake of argument that the agreement was subsisting, the suit for specific performance is not maintainable in law in view of breach of terms and conditions of agreement by the plaintiff.
37. The appellants in the appeal No.183/2017 / respondents in appeal No.258/2017 seeks relief the order of refund of amount of Rs.39,01,700/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 24 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 with interest @ 12% per annum is to be set aside in terms of the conditions in clause 17 of the agreement, the advance amount paid by the plaintiff has to be forfeited since he has not complied with the terms of contract.
38. In the case of Satish Batra vs Sudhir Rawal9. Para 15 reads as follows :
"15. The law is, therefore, clear that to justify the forfeiture of advance money being part of 'earnest money' the terms of the contract should be clear and explicit. Earnest money is paid or given at the time when the contract is entered into and, as a pledge for its due performance by the depositor to be forfeited in case of non-performance, by the depositor. There can be converse situation also that if the seller fails to perform the contract the purchaser can also get the double the amount, if it is so stipulated. It is also the law that part payment of purchase price cannot be forfeited unless it is a guarantee for the due performance of the contract. In other words, if the payment is made only towards part payment of consideration and not intended as earnest money then the forfeiture clause will not apply. "
39. In the light of the above judgment, in the present case, the agreement of sale property was began in the form of sauda-chitti dated 03.02.2008 at that time, the earnest money of Rs.1,51,000/-, thereafter, both the parties entered into an agreement of sale dated 22.02.2008 in Ex.P-1, the total sale consideration of Rs.04,05,37,000/- subsequently, plaintiff paid partial amount of Rs.39,01,700/- to the defendants on 27.02.2008, which was not towards earnest money, it is treated to be part of sale consideration, however, the plaintiff could not pay the balance amount on or before 20.08.2008, consequently, the sale deed could not be executed. As per clause 17 of the agreement Ex.P-1, it is mentioned that only earnest money will be forfeited in case of non-performance of contract and the remaining part of money is refundable to the plaintiff, therefore, the defendants are not entitled to forfeit the entire amount. The decree of refund of amount of Rs.39,01,700/- to the plaintiff by the defendants with interest @ 12% per annum till the payment apart from the plaintiff is entitled to get partial 9 2013 (1) SCC 345 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 25 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 amount of sale price in addition to the earnest money of Rs.1,51,000/- is appropriate.
40. In the case of Vishwanath Singh and Ors. vs. Shanti Kumar Sahu10. Para 32 reads as follows :
"32. In view of the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Court below has erred in granting decree of specific performance of contract. However, considering that the execution of agreement and payment of consideration has been found proved, it appears to be equitable, just and proper to direct the appellants to pay back the amount of Rs.45,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 14.6.1993 till date within a period of three months from today, failing which, this appeal shall stand dismissed."
41. Another decision in the case of Aditya Mass Communication vs. A.P. SRTC11. Para 9 reads as follows :
"9. .... we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court to the extent it has reduced the interest granted by the trial court from 12% to 9% and restore the interest liable to be paid by the respondent to the appellant on the retained earnest money deposit of Rs. 20 lacs to 12% as directed by the trial court."
42. In the light of the above judgments, it can be concluded that when the plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief of specific performance of contract, he is entitled to get interest @ 12% per annum on the part of sale consideration of Rs.39,01,700/-, accordingly, the order of refund of amount with interest to the plaintiff by the defendants from the date of cancellation of agreement of sale vide notice dated 22.08.2008 till the payment is appropriate.
43. In view of the foregoing reasons, the findings of learned trial Court are accurate and there is no need to interfere in the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2017 in RCSA No.2000021/2014. Accordingly, points answered.
44. Under such circumstances, having regard to the above discussions and in view of the settled proposition of law discussed (supra), this Court 10 2017 (1) MPLJ 396 11 2003 11 SCC 17 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO.2025:MPHC-IND:13251 26 FA Nos.258/2017, 183/2017 does not find any grounds to interfere with the well articulated judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal No.258/2017 filed by plaintiff / appellant herein and appeal No.183/2017 filed by the defendants / respondents No.1 to 7 herein and the same are liable to be dismissed.
45. (i). In the result, both the Appeals i.e. FA No.258/2017 filed by the appellant / plaintiff and FA No.183/2017 filed by the respondents / defendants are dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 23.03.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.2000021/2014 by the learned District Judge, Dewas, is confirmed, and
(ii). Directed the defendants No.1 to 7 / respondents herein to deposit earnest money of Rs.1,51,000/- within two months, and
(iii). Directed the defendants No.1 to 7 shall deposit an amount of Rs.39,01,700/- paid by the plaintiff under Ex.P-1 dated 22.02.2008 with interest of 12% per annum from the date of cancellation of contract dated 22.08.2008 (Ex.P-2) till the date of payment within two months from the date of this judgment, (if not already deposited or paid), and
(iv). On such deposit, the plaintiff is entitled to withdraw the amount deposited in Court, and
(v). If the defendants not deposited the said amounts within stipulated period, the plaintiff may go on execution in accordance with law, and
(vi). In the facts and circumstances, the parties have bear their own costs in these appeals.
46. Misc. application pending, if any, in these appeals stand closed.
(DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J) Anushree Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 19-05-2025 16:05:40