IN THE HONBLE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION , NASHIK

PRESIDED BY – MISS PRIYANKA BALASAB GAIKWAD

IN THE MATTER OF

SPL.CIVIL SUIT NO : 348/2024

MOHAN MAHALE …………………………………………….. PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

LALIT LANDGE ………………………………………………….

DEFENDDENT

JUDGEMENT

(Pronounced of 8th march 2025)

This is a suit for the specific performance of an agreement of sale and for possession and injunction over
the agriculture land described in the para no. 1 of the plaint. The agriculture land belongs to the lalit
landge (defendant) who, it is alleged agreed to sell it to Mr. mohan mahale(plaintiff), the plaintiff under
an agreement of sale dated 5 dec 2020 for a sum of RS 50,00,000 /- (in words Fifty lakhs only) . the
plaintiff says he paid him RS 5,00,000/- as a earnest money and that lalit landge was under the terms of
the agreement of sale, to execute the sale deed within 1 month from the date of its execution.
Subsequently , however lalit landge sold the agriculture land to 3rd party for the sum of RS 5200000 an
the plaintiff alleged that (3rd party) aware of the previous agreement of sale in favour f plaintiff. He has
filed this suit for the specific performance of contract , and possession injunction over a suit land.in the
favour of plaintiff.

The suit is contested by defendant lalit landge admits that he entered into the agreement with the plaintiff
, but alleged that he was unable to arrange money and therefore the client to get sale deed excuted in
favour of third party.

The Following issues arose for decision in the case:

1. Whether the time was of essence in the Contract, and suit filed by plaintiff is barred
by limitations?
2. Whether the plaintiff has performed his part of contract and thereby entitling him
for specific performance of contract and refund?
3. Whether the Defendant is legally obligated to execute the sale deed and transfer
possession of the property to the Plaintiff, despite the Plaintiff's delay in paying the
full consideration amount within the stipulated time?
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to seek a permanent injunction to prevent the
Defendant from selling the suit property to a third party, given that the Plaintiff has
fulfilled his part of the contract?
5. Relief and cost?

Findings

1. Whether the time was of essence in the Contract, and suit filed by plaintiff is
barred by limitations?
Upon considering the submissions of both parties and the applicable legal principles, the Court
finds that time was not of the essence in the contract. The Plaintiff has demonstrated that
payments were made in installments and accepted by the Defendant without protest. Relying on
the precedent set in K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairava and R. Kandasamy v. T.R.K. Sarawathy,
the Court observes that in agreements concerning the sale of immovable property, time is
generally not of essence unless explicitly stated otherwise. Furthermore, the Defendant’s
acceptance of payments beyond the stipulated period indicates a waiver of strict adherence to the
time frame. Thus, the Court holds that time was not an essential condition of the contract.

Whether the Suit is Barred by Limitation:

The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s suit is not barred by limitation. Under Section 18 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period for a suit for specific performance is three years from
the date of refusal by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has established that despite multiple requests,
the Defendant refused to execute the sale deed, leading to the issuance of a legal notice on 10th
September 2024. The suit was filed within three years from the date of refusal, making it well
within the statutory limitation period.

Additionally, the Court takes judicial notice of the Supreme Court’s circular (Circular No. P-
11/12/45AA(policy)12/2020-RevII, dated 22/12/2021), which extended limitation periods due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the unprecedented circumstances and government-imposed
lockdowns, the Plaintiff is entitled to relief under the extended limitation period.

2. Whether the plaintiff has performed his part of contract and thereby entitling
him for specific performance of contract and refund?

Performance of Contract by Plaintiff: The Plaintiff has demonstrated substantial

compliance with the contract by paying an earnest amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a
further sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-, totaling Rs. 35,00,000/-. The Plaintiff has also shown
readiness and willingness to perform his part by maintaining sufficient funds for the
remaining balance and making multiple requests for execution of the sale deed. The
Defendant has not denied the execution of the agreement, and public notices were
issued, indicating mutual consent to the transaction.

Defendant’s Non-Performance: Despite receiving substantial consideration, the

Defendant failed to execute the sale deed. The Defendant also attempted to sell the
property to a third party, violating the contractual obligations. This constitutes a
material breach of the agreement, entitling the Plaintiff to seek specific performance
under Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Time as Essence of Contract: In light of judicial precedents, including Chand Rani

v. Kamal Rani, time is generally not regarded as the essence of contracts for the sale
of immovable property. The delay by the Plaintiff in completing payment does not
automatically negate his entitlement to specific performance, as established in Dr.
Jiwan Lal v. Brij Mohan Mehra.

Defendant’s Allegation of Undue Influence: The Defendant claims that the contract
was induced by undue influence due to financial distress. However, the burden of
proof lies upon the Defendant under Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. No
conclusive evidence has been provided to substantiate this claim. Therefore, the
agreement remains legally binding.

Entitlement to Specific Performance: As per Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty

Infra Project Ltd., specific performance is the appropriate remedy for breach of a
contract concerning immovable property. The Plaintiff has fulfilled substantial
obligations and remains willing to perform the remaining terms. The Defendant,
having defaulted, cannot unilaterally rescind the contract. Thus, the Plaintiff is
entitled to specific performance.

3. Whether the Defendant is legally obligated to execute the sale deed and transfer
possession of the property to the Plaintiff, despite the Plaintiff's delay in paying
the full consideration amount within the stipulated time?

Defendant’s Obligation to Execute Sale Deed: The Court finds that the Plaintiff has
demonstrated a consistent readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as
required under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Plaintiff made
substantial payments, including an earnest sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- and further
installments totaling Rs. 30,00,000/-. The delay in paying the final Rs. 15,00,000/-
was neither substantial nor unreasonable and does not constitute a material breach.

Defendant’s Failure to Perform: The Defendant’s refusal to execute the sale deed,
despite the Plaintiff’s readiness to pay the balance amount, constitutes a breach of
contract. Under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the seller is
obligated to execute the sale deed and transfer possession when the buyer is ready to
pay the consideration. Judicial precedents, including Dalip Singh v. Prakash Chand
and Ramchandran v. Manickam, support the view that minor delays in payment do
not absolve the seller of their obligations.
Plaintiff’s Entitlement to Specific Performance: The Plaintiff has fulfilled
substantial contractual obligations and has approached the Defendant on multiple
occasions to execute the sale deed. In line with Sections 10 and 16 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, and judicial pronouncements such as Devi v. Ramesh, the Plaintiff
is entitled to specific performance of the contract.

No Entitlement to Permanent Injunction: The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff’s

failure to make full payment within the stipulated time precludes the grant of an
injunction. While the Defendant may have explored third-party sales, the Plaintiff’s
claim for an injunction lacks merit as there is no irreparable injury demonstrated. As
established in N. Subbarayalu v. State of Tamil Nadu, injunctions are granted only
when damages are inadequate remedies.

4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to seek a permanent injunction to prevent the

Defendant from selling the suit property to a third party, given that the Plaintiff has
fulfilled his part of the contract?

Breach of Contract
The Defendant’s attempt to sell the property to a third party despite the subsisting
contract with the Plaintiff constitutes a breach of contract. The Defendant failed to
execute the sale deed despite the Plaintiff’s willingness to fulfill the contract.

Irreparable Harm and Equitable Relief

Allowing the Defendant to sell the property to a third party would cause irreparable harm
to the Plaintiff, which cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages. The
Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction to protect his contractual rights.

5. Relief and cost?

Plaintiff’s Right to Claim Costs

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has been compelled to initiate legal proceedings due to
the Defendant’s failure to execute the sale deed and transfer possession. In accordance
with Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and relevant case law, the Plaintiff
is entitled to recover costs incurred in pursuing this suit.

Relief of Specific Performance

The evidence establishes that the Plaintiff has fulfilled his contractual obligations and has
been ready and willing to complete the transaction. The Defendant’s refusal to execute
the sale deed and attempts to transfer the property to a third party constitute a clear
breach. Under Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Plaintiff is entitled to
specific performance of the contract.

Relief of Possession
As the Plaintiff has made substantial payments and the contract is valid, the relief of
possession is granted under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Defendant is
directed to transfer possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff.

6. Defendant’s Claims
The Defendant’s contentions regarding the Plaintiff’s alleged delay and non-performance
are unsubstantiated. The Plaintiff has demonstrated consistent readiness to perform, while
the Defendant has failed to meet contractual obligations. The Defendant’s request for
cancellation of the agreement and costs in his favor is denied

ORDER

The suit is decreed for the Specific performance of the agreement of sale dated
5th ,December 2020 together with cost. The Plaintiff will deposit Rs 15,00,000 in court
within 1 month from today and on the money being deposited the defendant shall execute
sale deed within one month from the date of deposit of money in favor of plaintiff will be
entitled to have the sale deed executed through court. The plaintiff will also be put in
possession of the suit land i.e. agricultural land 16.5 Acers. Thereafter.

If, however , the plaintiff fails to deposit the amount within the time allowed, the suit will
stand dismissed with cost to the defendants.

Sd/ Priyanka Gaikwad

Civil Judge Senior Division,Nashik

Dated -8th March 2025

SHORT FORMAT

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION, NASHIK

Presided by – Miss Priyanka Balasab Gaikwad
SPL. CIVIL SUIT NO: 348/2024

MOHAN MAHALE – Plaintiff

VERSUS
LALIT LANDGE – Defendant

JUDGMENT
(Pronounced on 8th March 2025)

This suit for specific performance, possession, and injunction arises from an agreement of sale
dated 5th December 2020, under which the Defendant agreed to sell agricultural land to the
Plaintiff for ₹50,00,000, receiving ₹5,00,000 as earnest money. The Defendant, however, sold
the property to a third party despite the Plaintiff's readiness to perform.

Findings

1. Time & Limitation: Time was not of the essence, and the suit is within the limitation
period as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, considering the Defendant’s
continued engagement and COVID-19 extensions.
2. Performance of Contract: The Plaintiff made substantial payments and was ready and
willing to perform his obligations. The Defendant’s refusal to execute the sale deed
constitutes a breach.
3. Defendant’s Obligation: Despite minor delays in payment, the Plaintiff’s substantial
compliance entitles him to specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
4. Permanent Injunction: The Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction preventing further sale,
as Defendant’s actions would cause irreparable harm.
5. Relief & Costs: The Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance, possession, and
litigation costs.

Order

The suit is decreed for specific performance. The Plaintiff shall deposit ₹15,00,000 in court
within one month, upon which the Defendant shall execute the sale deed within one month. If
the Defendant fails, the Plaintiff may seek execution through the court. The Plaintiff shall also be
given possession of the 16.5-acre agricultural land.

If the Plaintiff fails to deposit the amount within the stipulated time, the suit stands dismissed
with costs to the Defendant.

Sd/- Priyanka Gaikwad

Civil Judge Senior Division, Nashik
Dated: 8th March 2025