Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Kailashi vs Amba Lal (2025:Rj-Jd:31325) on 17 July, 2025
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2025:RJ-JD:31325]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 43/2020
1. Kailashi W/o Shri Narayan, Aged About 55 Years, B/c
Meena, R/o Banediya Khurd, District Pratapgarh.
2. Mithu Lal S/o Shri Narayan, Aged About 29 Years, B/c
Meena, R/o Banediya Khurd, District Pratapgarh.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Amba Lal S/o Shri Karu, B/c Meena, R/o Banediya Khurd,
District Pratapgarh.
2. Jeevla S/o Shri Bheriya,
3. Nanda S/o Shri Chothiya,
4. Nagji S/o Shri Chothiya,
5. Mangi Lal S/o Shri Karu, --All B/c Meena, R/o Banediya
Khurd, District Pratapgarh.
6. The Tehsildar, Pratapgarh.
7. Ditudi @ Rupli W/o Shri Deetiya, B/c Meena, R/o
Banediya Khurd, District Pratapgarh.
8. Kamli D/o Shri Deetiya, W/o Hoodiya, B/c Meena, R/o
Chikat, Tehsil Arnod, District Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. SL Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jayant Jain
Mr. Urvashi kalla
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Judgment
Reserved on 10/07/2025
Pronounced on 17/07/2025
Reportable
01- vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ;g f}rh; vihy fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;
flfoy U;k;k/kh’k ¼dfu”B [kaM½ ,oa U;kf;d eftLVªsV] izrkix<+] ¼jktLFkku½ ds fu.kZ;
o fMØh fnukad 25-07-2011 o mlds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ izFke vihy
U;k;ky;&U;k;k/kh’k] ikfjokfjd U;k;ky;] izrkix<+] ¼jktLFkku½ ds fu.kZ; o fMØh
fnukad 16-08-2019 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh xbZ gSA
02- la{ksi esa ekeys ds rF; bl izdkj ls gSa fd oknh&izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls
okn&i= izLrqr dj ;g fuosnu fd;k fd xzke cusfM;k rglhy izrkix<+ esa fLFkr
vkjkth dqy jdck 4-78 gSDVs;j esa fnfr;k firk eduk dk 1@3 fgLlk Fkk] ftlesa
ls vk/kk fgLlk ;kfu 1@6 fgLlk fnukad 18-04-2003 dks 21]000@& :i;s esa oknh
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:23:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31325] (2 of 12) [CSA-43/2020]
dks foØ; djus dk lkSnk dj fn;k o foØ; jkf’k 21]000@& :i;s izkIr dj fy,
vkSj bdjkjukek fy[kk x;k vkSj bdjkj ds vuqlkj oknh&Øsrk ds dgus ij jftLVªh
oknh ds [kpsZ ij djkuk r; gqvkA fnfr;k dk fu/ku flrEcj 2003 esa gks x;k] mlds
i’pkr oknh }kjk izR;FkhZ la[;k 1 ls 5 dks lkSns ds vuqlkj foØ; jftLVªh oknh ds
i{k esa djokus ds fy, dgk] ysfdu VkyeVwyk dk tokc fn;k vkSj fnfr;k ds
oS/kkfud mRrjkf/kdkjh 1 ls 6 us foØ;&i= rdehy dj jftLVªh djkus ls bUdkj
dj fn;kA ftlij 1 ls 6 dks jftLVªh }kjk uksfVl Hksts x;sA ijarq foØ; i= dh
jftLVªh ugha djokbZA oknh foØ; jftLVªh djkus ds fy, vkSj mlesa gksus okys O;;
dks mBkus ds fy, lnSo rS;kj jgk gS vkSj vkt Hkh gS oxSjk&oxSjk ds vk/kkj ij
foØ; ds djkj dh fofufnZ”V ikyuk esa foØ;&i= oknh ds i{k esa rdehy o jftLVªh
djok, tkus vkSj la;qDr [kkrs dk caVokjk fd;k tkdj 1@6 Hkkx dk dCtk fnyk,
tkus dh izkFkZuk dhA
03- ftldk tokc izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 8 dh vksj ls vyx ls fn;k
x;k ,oa izfroknh la[;k 9 o 10 dh vksj ls Hkh vyx ls tokc fn;k x;kA
04- i{kdkjku ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij dqy 6 fook|d dk;e fd, x,
vkSj oknhx.k dh vksj ls dqy ikap xokg djok, x, ,oa izfroknh dh vksj ls nks
xokg djok, x,A
05- fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk cgl lquh tkdj okn vkaf’kd :i ls
fMØh fd;k tkdj izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 6 dh vksj ls bdjkjukek izn’kZ 1 dh ikyuk
esas okn&i= dk pj.k la[;k 1 esa of.kZr d`f”k Hkwfe esa e`rd fnfr;k ds 1@3 fgLls dh
vk/kh vkjkth dk foØ;&i= oknh ds i{k esa oknh ds [kpsZ ij fu”ikfnr dj iath;u
djkus ckcr fMØh nh xbZA ftlls O;fFkr gksdj izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 6 dh vksj ls
vihy dh xbZ] tks vihy vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds
fu.kZ; o fMØh dh iqf”V djrs gq, [kkfjt dh xbZA ftl ij ;g f}rh; vihy
vihykFkhZx.k&izfroknhx.k la[;k 2 o 3 dh vksj ls izLrqr dh xbZ gS vkSj izfroknh
la[;k 5 ls 11 dks izR;FkhZ la[;k 2 ls 8 ds :i esa tksM+k x;k gSA
06- vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls f}rh; vihy esa eq[; :i ls ;g vk/kkj fy;k
x;k fd /kkjk 16¼lh½ fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds eqrkfcd vko’;d vfHkopu o
lk{; oknh&izR;FkhZ la[;k 1 dh vksj ls izLrqr ugha dh xbZ] mlds ckotwn Hkh
fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk fook|d la[;k 2 dk fu.kZ;
oknh&izR;FkhZ la[;k 1 ds i{k esa fd;k x;k gS] tks fof/klEer ugha gS vkSj nwljk
vk/kkj /kkjk 20 fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ds laca/k esa fy;k x;k
vkSj ;g fuosnu fd;k fd bl ekeys esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:23:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31325] (3 of 12) [CSA-43/2020]
fook+|d la[;k 3 ds fu.kZ; esa discretionary relief oknh&izR;FkhZ la[;k 1 ds i{k esa
djrs gq, cSukek djok;k tkuk r; fd;k x;k gS] tks fof/klEer ugha gS vkSj /kkjk
16¼lh½ o /kkjk 20 fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds laca/k esa lkjHkwr fof/kd iz’u
¼Substantial question of law½ ^ch* o ^lh* izLrkfor fd, x, gSa vkSj fopkj.k
U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 25-07-2011 o vihyh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; o
fMØh fnukad 16-08-2019 dks fujLr fd, tkus vkSj okn&i= [kkfjt fd, tkus dk
fuosnu fd;k x;k gSA
07- cgl ,Mfe’ku lquh xbZA
08- f}rh; vihy dks fopkjkFkZ xzg.k djus ls iwoZ bl iz’u ij fopkj djuk
vko’;d gS fd bl ekeys esa dksbZ lkjHkwr fof/kd iz’u ¼ Substantial question of
law½ fo|eku gS vFkok ugha] tks /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- ds eqrkfcd 1976 esa gq, la’kks/ku
ds i’pkr gksuk vko’;d gSA
09- f}rh; vihy ds laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vius U;kf;d
n`”Vkar Nazir Mohamed Vs. J. Kamala and Ors. [2020] 0 AIR(SC) 4321 ds
ekeys esa fofHkUu U;kf;d n`”Vkar ij fopkj djrs gq, iSjk la[;k 25] 26] 29 ls 37 esa
fuEukuqlkj fof/kd fLFkfr Li”V dh xbZ gS%&
25. A second appeal, or for that matter, any appeal is
not a matter of right. The right of appeal is conferred
by statute. A second appeal only lies on a substantial
question of law. If statute confers a limited right of
appeal, the Court cannot expand the scope of the
appeal. It was not open to the Respondent-Plaintiff to
re-agitate facts or to call upon the High Court to
reanalyze or re-appreciate evidence in a Second
Appeal.
26. Section 100 of the CPC, as amended, restricts the
right of second appeal, to only those cases, where a
substantial question of law is involved. The existence of
a “substantial question of law” is the sine qua non for
the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the
CPC.
29. The principles for deciding when a question of law
becomes a substantial question of law, have been
enunciated by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Sir
Chunilal v. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg.
Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314, where this Court held:
“The proper test for determining whether a question of
law raised in the case is substantial would, in our
opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or
whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of
the parties and if so whether it is either an open
question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this
Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:23:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31325] (4 of 12) [CSA-43/2020]is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of
alternative views. If the question is settled by the
highest court or the general principles to be applied in
determining the question are well settled and there is a
mere question of applying those principles or that the
plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not
be a substantial question of law.”
30. In Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545,
this Court referred to and relied upon Chunilal v. Mehta
and Sons (supra) and other judgments and summarised
the tests to find out whether a given set of questions of
law were mere questions of law or substantial questions
of law.
31. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of this
Court in Hero Vinoth (supra) are set out hereinbelow:
“21. The phrase “substantial question of law”, as
occurring in the amended Section 100 CPC is not
defined in the Code. The word substantial, as
qualifying “question of law”, means of having
substance, essential, real, of sound worth,
important or considerable. It is to be understood
as something in contradistinction with-technical,
of no substance or consequence, or academic
merely. However, it is clear that the legislature
has chosen not to qualify the scope of
“substantial question of law” by suffixing the
words “of general importance” as has been done
in many other provisions such as Section 109 of
the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The substantial question of law on which a
second appeal shall be heard need not
necessarily be a substantial question of law of
general importance. In Guran Ditta v. Ram Ditta
[(1927-28) 5I5 IA 235 : AIR 1928 PC 172] the
phrase substantial question of law as it was
employed in the last clause of the then existing
Section 100 CPC (since omitted by the
Amendment Act, 1973) came up for
consideration and their Lordships held that it did
not mean a substantial question of general
importance but a substantial question of law
which was involved in the case. In Sir Chunilal
case [1962 Supp (3) SCR 549 : AIR 1962 SC
1314] the Constitution Bench expressed
agreement with the following view taken by a
Full Bench of the Madras High Court in
Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju [ AIR
1951 Mad 969 : (3) SCR 549 : (1951) 2 MLJ 222
(FB)] : (Sir Chunilal case [1962 Supp AIR 1962
SC 1314], SCR p. 557)
“When a question of law is fairly arguable, where
there is room for difference of opinion on it or
where the Court thought it necessary to deal
with that question at some length and discuss
alternative views, then the question would be a(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:23:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31325] (5 of 12) [CSA-43/2020]substantial question of law. On the other hand if
the question was practically covered by the
decision of the highest court or if the general
principles to be applied in determining the
question are well settled and the only question
was of applying those principles to the particular
fact of the case it would not be a substantial
question of law.”
32. To be “substantial”, a question of law must be
debatable, not previously settled by the law of the land
or any binding precedent, and must have a material
bearing on the decision of the case and/or the rights of
the parties before it, if answered either way.
33. To be a question of law “involved in the case”, there
must be first, a foundation for it laid in the pleadings,
and the question should emerge from the sustainable
findings of fact, arrived at by Courts of facts, and it
must be necessary to decide that question of law for a
just and proper decision of the case.
34. Where no such question of law, nor even a mixed
question of law and fact was urged before the Trial
Court or the First Appellate Court, as in this case, a
second appeal cannot be entertained, as held by this
Court in Panchagopal Barua v. Vinesh Chandra
Goswami, AIR 1997 SC 1047.
35. Whether a question of law is a substantial one and
whether such question is involved in the case or not,
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case. The paramount overall consideration is the need
for striking a judicious balance between the
indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and
the impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the
life of any lis. This proposition finds support from
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC
179.
36. In a Second Appeal, the jurisdiction of the High
Court being confined to substantial question of law, a
finding of fact is not open to challenge in second
appeal, even if the appreciation of evidence is palpably
erroneous and the finding of fact incorrect as held in
Ramchandra v. Ramalingam, AIR 1963 SC 302. An
entirely new point, raised for the first time, before the
High Court, is not a question involved in the case,
unless it goes to the root of the matter.
37. The principles relating to Section 100 CPC relevant
for this case may be summarised thus :
(i) An inference of fact from the recitals or
contents of a document is a question of fact, but
the legal effect of the terms of a document is a
question of law. Construction of a document,
involving the application of any principle of law,
is also a question of law. Therefore, when there
is misconstruction of a document or wrong(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:23:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31325] (6 of 12) [CSA-43/2020]application of a principle of law in construing a
document, it gives rise to a question of law.
(ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the
case involves a substantial question of law, and
not a mere question of law. A question of law
having a material bearing on the decision of the
case (that is, a question, answer to which affects
the rights of parties to the suit) will be a
substantial question of law, if it is not covered by
any specific provisions of law or settled legal
principle emerging from binding precedents, and,
involves a debatable legal issue.
(iii) A substantial question of law will also arise in
a contrary situation, where the legal position is
clear, either on account of express provisions of
law or binding precedents, but the Court below
has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting
contrary to such legal principle. In the second
type of cases, the substantial question of law
arises not because the law is still debatable, but
because the decision rendered on a material
question, violates the settled position of law.
(iv) The general rule is, that High Court will not
interfere with the concurrent findings of the
Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule.
Some of the well-recognised exceptions are
where (i) the courts below have ignored material
evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts
have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts
by applying the law erroneously; or (iii)the
courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. A
decision based on no evidence, does not refer
only to cases where there is a total dearth of
evidence, but also refers to case, where the
evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably
capable of supporting the finding
10- iwoZ esa of.kZr uthj eksgEen okys ekeys esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa dks
en~nsutj j[krs gq, gLrxr ekeys ij fopkj fd;k x;kA
11- fo}ku vf/koDRkk vihykFkhZ }kjk cgl ,Mfe’ku ds nkSjku eq[; :i ls
;g vk/kkj fy;k fd /kkjk 16¼lh½ fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds eqrkfcd oknh }kjk
vfHkopu ugha fd;k x;k vkSj oknh dh vksj ls /kkjk 16¼lh½ fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k
vf/kfu;e ds eqrkfcd ;g lk{; ugha nh xbZ fd og bdjkjukek dh vius fgLls dh
ikyuk djus ds fy, rS;kj Fkk] gS o rRij jgsxk vkSj ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd
/kkjk 16¼lh½ fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk
fook|d la[;k 2 ds fu.kZ; ds oDr fof/klEer rjhds ls fopkj ugha fd;k vkSj
vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh bl ij fopkj ugha fd;k x;kA ,slh voLFkk esa bl ekeys
esa tks fcUnw la[;k ^ch* lkjHkwr fof/kd iz’u ¼Substantial question of law½
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:23:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31325] (7 of 12) [CSA-43/2020]
izLrkfor fd;k x;k gS] og bl ekeys esa cuuk ik;k tkrk gS vkSj lkjHkwr fof/kd
iz’u ¼Substantial question of law½ bl ckcr cuk;k tkosA
12- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ }kjk ;g Hkh rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd bl ekeys
esa foØ; ds djkj dh ikyuk esa cSukek djokus ds laca/k esa tks fu.kZ; fn;k x;k]
og /kkjk 20 fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds eqrkfcd discretionary relief izkIr
djus dk oknh&izR;FkhZ la[;k 1 vf/kdkjh ugha gSA mlds ckotwn fook+|d la[;k 3
dk fu.kZ; fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk oknh&izR;FkhZ ds i{k esa fd;k x;k o vihyh;
U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh /kkjk 20 fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds eqrkfcd v/khuLFk
U;k;ky; ds fook|d la[;k 3 ds fu.kZ; dh iqf”V djus esa fof/kd Hkwy dh gSA ,slh
voLFkk esa bl ekeys esa /kkjk 20 fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds laca/k esa izLrkfor
lkjHkwr fof/kd iz’u ¼Substantial question of law½ ^lh* cuk, tkus dk fuosnu
fd;k rFkk esjk /;ku ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`”Vkar Man Kaur
(Dead) By LRs. VS Hartar Singh Sangha 2011 (2) MPLJ 1 {(2010) 0
Supreme(SC) 946} dh vksj /;ku vkdf”kZr fd;kA
13- fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd bl
ekeys esa oknh }kjk /kkjk 16¼lh½ fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds eqrkfcd i;kZIr
vfHkopu okn&i= esa fd;k gS vkSj bl ckcr lk{; Hkh nh gSA ,slh lwjr esa /kkjk
16¼lh½ fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds laca/k esa lkjHkwr fof/kd iz’u ¼ Substantial
question of law½ ugha cuk;k tk ldrk vkSj ;g Hkh rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd /kkjk 20
fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds eqrkfcd Hkh tks foØ;&i= djok, tkus dh fMØh nh
xbZ og fof/klEer gSA bl laca/k esa Hkh dksbZ lkjHkwr fof/kd iz’u ¼ Substantial
question of law½ cuk, tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fofHkUu
U;kf;d n`”Vkarksa dh vksj esjk /;ku vkdf”kZr fd;kA
14- eSaus mijksDr rdksZa ij euu fd;kA i=koyh dk lko/kkuhiwoZd voyksdu
fd;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds
iwoZ esa of.kZr eudkSj okys ekeys esa iSjk la[;k 09 o 11 esa /kkjk 16¼lh½ fofufnZ”V
vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds laca/k esa fuEukuqlkj fof/kd fLFkfr Li”V dh xbZ gS%&
9. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act 1963 (‘Act’ for short)
bars the specific performance of a contract in favour of a
plaintiff who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or
has always been ready and willing to perform the essential
terms of the contract which are to be performed by him (other
than terms of the performance of which has been prevented or
waived by the defendant). Explanation (ii) to section 16
provides that for purposes of clause (c) of section 16, the
plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness
to perform, the contract according to its true construction.
Thus in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff should not
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:23:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31325] (8 of 12) [CSA-43/2020]
only plead and prove the terms of the agreement, but should
also plead and prove his readiness and willingness to perform
his obligations under the contract in terms of the contract. (See
: N.P. Thirugnanam to R. Jagan Mohan Rao,1 AIR 1996 SC 116;
Pushparani S.Sundaram v. Pauline Manomani James,2 2002 (9)
scc 582; and Manjunath Anandappa v. Tammanasa,3 2003 (10)
scc 390).
11. …..(c) that he was always ready and willing to perform his
part of the obligations in terms of the contract. If a plaintiff has
to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his
part of the contract, that is, to perform his obligations in terms
of the contract. ….
15- /kkjk 16¼lh½ fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre
U;k;ky; ds rhu ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifrx.k dh ihB }kjk Syed Dastagir VS T. R.
Gopalakrishna Setty, (1999) 0 Supreme(SC) 831 ds ekeys esa fopkj dj iSjk
la[;k 9] 12 o 13 esa /kkjk 16¼lh½ fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds laca/k esa fof/kd
fLFkfr Li”V dh xbZ gS%&
9. So whole gamut of issue raised is, how to construe a plea
specially with reference to Section 16(c) and what are the
obligations which the plaintiff has to comply with reference to
his plea and whether the plea of the plaintiff could not be
construed to conform to the requirement of the aforesaid
Section, or does this section require specific words to be
pleaded that he has performed or has always been ready and is
willing to perform his part of the contract. In construing a plea
in any pleading, Courts must keep in mind that a plea is not an
expression of art and science but an expression through words
to place fact and law of one s case for a relief. Such an
expression may be pointed, precise, some times vague but still
could be gathered what he wants to convey through only by
reading the whole pleading, depends on the person drafting a
plea. In India most of the pleas are drafted by counsels hence
aforesaid difference of pleas which inevitably differ from one to
other. Thus, to gather true spirit behind a plea it should be read
as a whole. This does not distract one from performing his
obligations as required under a statute. But to test, whether he
has performed his obligations one has to see the pith and
substance of a plea. Where a statute requires any fact to be
pleaded then that has to be pleaded may be in any form. Same
plea may be stated by different persons through different
words then how could it be constricted to be only in any
particular nomenclature or word. Unless statute specifically
require for a plea to be in any particular form, it can be in any
form. No specific phraseology or language is required to take
such a plea. The language in Section 16(c) does not require
any specific phraseology but only that the plaintiff must aver
that he has performed or has always been and is willing to
perform his part of the contract. So the compliance of
“Readiness and willingness” has to be in spirit and substance
and not in letter and form. So to insist for mechanical
production of the exact words of an statute is to insist for the
form rather than essence. So absence of form cannot dissolve
an essence if already pleaded.
12. In interpreting a pleading wherever there be two possible
interpretations, then the one which defeats justice should be
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:23:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31325] (9 of 12) [CSA-43/2020]
rejected and the one which sub-serve to justice should be
accepted.
13. It was held in the case of Ramesh Chandra v. Chuni Lal4,
that readiness and willingness cannot be treated as a strait-
jacket formula. This have to be determined from the entirety of
facts and circumstances relevant to the intention and conduct
of the party concerned. Finally, we have no hesitation to hold
that the pleading as made by the plaintiff not only shows his
readiness and willingness to perform his part of obligation
under the contract but by tendering total amount shows he has
performed his part of the obligation. We also construe such a
plea to be a plea of “readiness and willingness” as required
under Section 16(c). In view of the aforesaid findings we hold
that the High Court committed an error by defeating the claim
of the plaintiff on the basis of wrong interpretation of his plea
in terms of the said Section.
16- iwoZ esa of.kZr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds rhu ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifrx.k
dh ihB ds Syed Dastagir okys ekeys ds iSjk la[;k 9 ij ekuuh; mPpre
U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`”Vkar Motilal Jain VS Ramdasi Devi (2000) 0
Supreme(SC) 1115 o Sughar Singh vs Hari Singh (Dead) Through LRs.
(2021) 0 Supreme (SC) 635 }kjk Hkh /kkjk 16¼lh½ fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e
ds laca/k esa fopkj fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr ds vykok ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds
U;kf;d n`”Vkar Pandurang Ganpat Tanwade Vs. Ganpat Bhairu Kadam &
Ors. AIR 1997 SC 463 ds ekeys esa 7000@& :i;s esa lEifRr [kjhn djus dk
djkj gqvk] ftlesa ls dqy 3800@& :i;s vnk dj fn, x,A dsoy 3200@& :i;s
‘ks”k Fks o foØ;&foys[k dk [kpkZ oknh dks ogu djuk Fkk vkSj okn&i= ls iwoZ
jftLVMZ Mkd ls uksfVl Hkh fn;k x;kA ml voLFkk esa /kkjk 16¼lh½ fofufnZ”V
vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds eqrkfcd readiness o willingness gksuk ekuh xbZA
17- iwoZ esa of.kZr fof/kd fLFkfr dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, gLrxr ekeys ij
fopkj fd;k x;kA gLrxr ekeys esa oknh }kjk vius okn&i= ds iSjk la[;k 4 esa ;g
Li”V fd;k gS fd 1@3 fgLlk dk vk/kk fgLlk 1@6 fnfr;k ls fnukad 18-04-2003
dks 21]000@& :i;s eas foØ; djus dk lkSnk gqvk vkSj 21]000@& :i;s bdjkj ds
jkst vnk dj fn, x, vkSj bdjkj ds vuqlkj oknh ds dgus ij jftLVªh oknh ds
[kpsZ ls djkus dk r; gqvk Fkk vkSj iSjk la[;k 4 esa ;g vfHkopu fd;k fd fnfr;k
dk fu/ku flrEcj 2003 esa gks x;kA mlds i’pkr izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 5 dks lkSnk
ds vuqlkj jftLVªh djokus ds fy, dgk ijarq VkyeVwyk dk tokc fn;k vkSj fnrh;k
ds oS/kkfud mRrjkf/kdkjh 1 ls 6 us foØ;&i= rdehy dj jftLVªh djokus ls euk
fd;kA oknh us izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 6 dks jftLVªh }kjk uksfVl Hkh fn,A mlds
ckotwn jftLVªh ugha djokbZA oknh foØ; jftLVªh djokus ds fy, o mlesa gksus okys
O;; dks mBkus ds fy, lnSo rS;kj jgk gS] o vkt Hkh gSA
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:23:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31325] (10 of 12) [CSA-43/2020]
18- oknh dh vksj ls crkSj ih-MCY;w01 vEckyky }kjk viuh eq[; ijh{kk ds
:i esa izLrqr ‘kiFk&i= ds iSjk la[;k 2 o 3 esa Li”V :i ls ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd
lkSnk 21]000@& :i;s esa gqvk] tks fy[kk&i<+h ds jkst 18-04-2003 dks vnk dj
fn,A lk{kh us fnfr;k dks dbZ ckj jftLVªh djokus ds fy, dgk ysfdu og
VkyeVksyk dk tokc nsrk jgkA mlds ejus ds ckn izfroknh Øekad 1 ls 6] tks fd
mlds mRrjkf/kdkjh gS] dks Hkh jftLVªh djokus ds fy, dgk rks euk dj fn;kA bl
ij lk{kh us jftLVªh djkus ds fy, uksfVl fn;kA ysfdu mlds ckn Hkh izfroknhx.k
us jftLVªh ugha djokbZA bl dkj.k ls nkok djuk iM+kA U;k;ky; esa l’kiFk c;ku
ds nkSjku uksfVl izn’kZ 3] iksLVy jlhn izn’kZ 4 yxk;r 7 o uksfVl feyus dh jlhn
izn’kZ 8 o 9 iznf’kZr djok;k gS vkSj izn’kZ 9 ij dSyk’kh ds yM+ds ds gLrk{kj gksuk
crk;k ftjg esa xokg us ;g dgk fd fy[kk&i<+h djus ds 15 fnu ckn lk{kh us
fnfr;k dks jftLVªh djokus ds fy, dgk Fkk rks fnfr;k us dgk fd jftLVªh djok
nwaxk ysfdu mlus ugha djokbZA jftLVªh ugha djokus dk lk{kh us fnfr;k dks uksfVl
ugha fn;kA
19- bl ekeys esa fook+|d la[;k 2 dk;e fd;k x;k] ftldk fu.kZ;
fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk izR;FkhZ la[;k 1@oknh ds i{k esa fd;kA
bl ekeys esa iwoZ esa of.kZr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds Syed Dastagir okys
ekeys] eksrhyky tSu okys ekeys o Sughar Singh okys ekeys ds eqrkfcd /kkjk
16¼lh½ fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds eqrkfcd foØ; ds djkj ds vius fgLls dh
ikyuk djus ds fy, lSno rS;kj rRij gS] Fkk o jgsxk] ds laca/k esa fof’k”V vfHkopu
bl izdkj ls fd;k tkuk vko’;d ugha gS] izdj.k ds rF; ,oa lk{; ls gh fu”d”kZ
fudkyk tk ldrk gSA
20- bl ekeys esa okn&i= esa fof’k”V vfHkopu Hkh Li”V :i ls gS fd oknh
foØ; jftLVªh djokus ds fy, o mlesa gksus okys O;; dks mBkus ds fy, lnSo rS;kj
jgk gS o vkt Hkh gS ijarq eq[; ijh{kk esa izLrqr ‘kiFk&i= esa ,sls fof’k”V dFku ugha
gS] mlds ckotwn tks eq[; ijh{kk o izfrijh{kk gqbZ gS] mlds vuq:i lEifRr dk
foØ; djkj 21]000@& :i;s esa gqvk Fkk] tks foØ; ds djkj ds fnu gh jkf’k ns nh
xbZA dsoy jftLVªh dk [kpkZ gh oknh }kjk ogu fd;k tkuk Fkk vkSj oknh }kjk vius
okn&i= esa izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 5 dks ekSf[kd fuosnu djuk crk;k gS vkSj uksfVl
Hkh izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 6 dks nsuk crk;k gS vkSj uksfVl dh izfr o jftLVªh dh
jflnksa dks U;k;ky; esa iznf’kZr Hkh djk;k gS vkSj fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh;
U;k;ky; }kjk fook+|d la[;k 2 dk fu.kZ; vihykFkhZ ds fo:) o oknh&izR;FkhZ
la[;k 1 ds i{k esa fd;k x;k gSA ,slh voLFkk esa ;g ,slk ekeyk ugha gS ftlesa /kkjk
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:23:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31325] (11 of 12) [CSA-43/2020]
16¼lh½ fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e dh ikyuk gksuk izFke n`”V;k gh izrhr u gksrk
gksA bl otg ls bl ekeys esa /kkjk 16¼lh½ fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds laca/k esa
izLrkfor lkjHkwr fof/kd iz’u ¼Substantial question of law½ ^ch* cuk;k tkuk]
bl ekeys ds rF; ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vkSj iwoZ esa of.kZr fof/kd fLFkfr ds en~nsutj
U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA
21- vc bl ekeys esa izLrkfor lkjHkwr fof/kd iz’u ¼Substantial
question of law½ ^lh* ij fopkj fd;k tk jgk gS] bl ckcr ekuuh; mPpre
U;k;ky; ds iwoZ esa of.kZr Sughar Singh okys ekeys esa /kkjk 20 fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k
vf/kfu;e ds laca/k esa tks foospu fd;k x;k] ml ckcr iSjk la[;k 10 o 10-1
lqlaxr gS] tks fuEukuqlkj gS%&
10. Now, so far as the finding recorded by the High Court and
the observations made by the High court on Section 20 of the
Act and the observation that even if the agreement is found to
be duly executed and the plaintiff is found to be ready and
willing to perform his part of the Agreement, grant of decree of
specific performance is not automatic and it is a discretionary
relief is concerned, the same cannot be accepted and/or
approved. In such a case, many a times it would be giving a
premium to the dishonest conduct on the part of the
defendant/executant of the agreement to sell. Even the
discretion under Section 20 of the Act is required to be
exercised judiciously, soundly and reasonably. The plaintiff
cannot be punished by refusing the relief of specific
performance despite the fact that the execution of the
agreement to sell in his favour has been established and
proved and that he is found to be always ready and willing to
perform his part of the contract. Not to grant the decree of
specific performance despite the execution of the agreement to
sell is proved; part sale consideration is proved and the plaintiff
is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract
would encourage the dishonesty. In such a situation, the
balance should tilt in favour of the plaintiff rather than in
favour of the defendant – executant of the agreement to sell,
while exercising the discretion judiciously. For the aforesaid,
even amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by which
section 10(a) has been inserted, though may not be applicable
retrospectively but can be a guide on the discretionary relief.
Now the legislature has also thought it to insert Section 10(a)
and now the specific performance is no longer a discretionary
relief. As such the question whether the said provision would
be applicable retrospectively or not and/or should be made
applicable to all pending proceedings including appeals is kept
open. However, at the same time, as observed hereinabove,
the same can be a guide.
10.1 Even otherwise it is required to be noted that as such on
applicability of Section 20 of the Act, no issue was framed
either by the learned Trial Court or by the learned First
Appellate Court or even by the High Court. The same has been
dealt with by the High Court for the first time in a Second
Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. Even otherwise no
cogent reasons have been given as to why the decree of
specific performance shall not be passed in favour of the
plaintiff.
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:23:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31325] (12 of 12) [CSA-43/2020]
22- Sughar Singh okys ekeys ds vuq:i gh bl ekeys esa vihykFkhZ }kjk
/kkjk 20 fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds eqrkfcd foØ; ds djkj dh ikyuk dh fMØh
fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk nh xbZ og fdl izdkj ls
fof/klEer ugha gS] bl laca/k esa dksbZ cogent reasons vihy esa of.kZr ugha fd,
x, gSa vkSj bl ekeys esa fook|d la[;k 3 dk;e fd;k x;k Fkk] ftldk fu.kZ;
fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk oknh@izR;FkhZ la[;k 1 ds i{k esa o
[email protected] ds fo:) fd;k x;k gSA gLrxr ekeys esa foØ; ds djkj
ds jkst leLr izfrQy jkf’k 21]000@& :i;s ns nh xbZ Fkh vkSj bl ekeys esa
fnfr;k }kjk vius 1@3 fgLls dk 1@2 fgLlk ;kfu 1@6 fgLls dk gh foØ; fd;k
Fkk vkSj ml fgLls ds fofufnZ”V vuqikyuk esa foØ;&i= djk, tkus dh fMØh nh xbZ
gSA caVokjs ds laca/k esa fMØh fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ugha nh xbZA ,slh voLFkk esa bl
ekeys esa dksbZ U;k;ksfpr vk/kkj vihy esa ugha mBk;k x;k] bl dkj.k ls gLrxr
ekeys ds rF; ifjLFkfr;ksa esa /kkjk 20 fofufnZ”V vuqrks”k vf/kfu;e ds vuq:i
izLrkfor lkjHkwr fof/kd iz’u ¼Substantial question of law½ ^lh* cuk;k tkuk Hkh
fof/klEer izrhr ugha gksrk vU; izLrkfor lkjHkwr fof/kd iz’u ¼ Substantial
question of law½ ds laca/k esa nkSjkus cgl dksbZ vk/kkj ugha fy;k x;kA
23- fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ us vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa bl U;k;ky; ds
U;kf;d n`”Vkar Badri Lal Vs Moda Civil Revision No. 195/1972 fu.kZ; fnukad
01-01-1979 o Bhopal Singh Vs. Bhagwat Singh Civil Revision No.
203/1977 fu.kZ; fnukad 03-01-1979 is’k fd,] tks bl izdj.k ds rF;ksa ifjfLFkfr;ksa
ls lacaf/kr ugha gSA ,slh voLFkk esa izR;FkhZ dksbZ ykHk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSaA
24- ,slh voLFkk esa bl ekeys esa fdlh izdkj dk lkjHkwr fof/kd iz’u
¼Substantial question of law½ mRiUu gksuk ugha ik, tkus ls vihy
vihykFkhZ ,Mfe’ku dh LVst ij gh [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA
25- vr% vihy vihykFkhZx.k vUrxZr /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- ,Mfe’ku dh
LVst ij [kkfjt dh tkrh gS vkSj LFkxu izkFkZuk&i= dk Hkh fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk
gSA fu.kZ; dh izfr ds lkFk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; dk fjdkWMZ
fHktok;k tkosA
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J
95-mayank/-
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:23:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link