Case Citation:
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Title: Parswanath Saha v. Bandhana Modak (Das) and Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 14804 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18743 of 2022)
Date of Judgment: December 20, 2024
Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., and R. Mahadevan, J.
Facts of the Case:
The appellant, Parswanath Saha, filed a suit for the specific performance of an agreement of sale concerning a property owned by the deceased, Prabha Ranjan Das. The agreement was executed on May 27, 2016, with a total sale consideration of ₹17,50,000, of which ₹4,00,000 was paid as earnest money. Following the owner’s demise in July 2016, the respondents (his widow and minor son) refused to execute the sale deed, leading the appellant to seek judicial intervention. The Trial Court decreed specific performance in favor of the appellant. However, the High Court reversed the decision, citing hardship to the respondents, who would be rendered homeless if the suit property was sold.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant argued that the agreement of sale was valid, duly executed, and witnessed. He maintained that the deceased was of sound mind when entering into the agreement and that the appellant had always been ready and willing to fulfill his obligations. The appellant challenged the High Court’s reliance on hardship as a ground for denying specific performance, asserting that the respondents resided elsewhere and would not be homeless upon enforcement of the agreement.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents contended that executing the sale deed would leave them homeless, as the suit property was their only shelter. They argued that their hardship was a valid ground under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to deny specific performance. They also questioned the appellant’s readiness and willingness to fulfill the contract and highlighted that the deceased’s deteriorating health at the time of the agreement may have influenced his decision.
Issues on This Judgment:
- Whether the respondents’ plea of hardship justified denying specific performance of the agreement.
- Whether the appellant demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
- Whether the High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court’s decree of specific performance.
Observations/Findings of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court underscored that while granting specific performance is discretionary under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, this discretion must be exercised judiciously. It rejected the High Court’s finding of hardship, emphasizing that the respondents had not provided evidence of unforeseen hardship at the time of entering the agreement. The Court noted that the deceased and the respondents were not residing in the suit property at the time, which undermined the hardship claim.
The Court also observed that the appellant had consistently demonstrated readiness and willingness to fulfill the contract. It found no substantial reason to overturn the Trial Court’s decree, which had been based on sound legal principles.
Principles Laid Down by the Court in This Case:
- The relief of specific performance is discretionary but must be guided by sound and reasonable judicial principles.
- Hardship under Section 20(2)(b) of the Specific Relief Act must be unforeseen at the time of entering the contract and proven with cogent evidence.
- Mere inadequacy of consideration or an increase in property value over time does not constitute grounds to deny specific performance.
- The conduct of parties, readiness, and willingness to perform contractual obligations are critical considerations in specific performance cases.
Final Order:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the Trial Court’s decree with modifications. It directed the appellant to pay an enhanced balance consideration of ₹20,00,000 to the respondents instead of the original amount of ₹13,50,000. The respondents were ordered to execute the sale deed upon receipt of this amount.
Importance of This Judgment to Society:
This judgment reaffirms the principle that specific performance is not a matter of right but is contingent on equitable considerations and judicial discretion. It underscores the necessity of balancing contractual obligations with fairness, ensuring that unforeseen hardships do not unjustly burden parties. By modifying the terms of the decree, the Court demonstrated its commitment to equitable justice, providing both monetary compensation to the respondents and enforcement of the appellant’s contractual rights. The decision highlights the judiciary’s role in upholding contractual sanctity while accommodating human and social considerations.
