News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 22
Bilaspur, January 9, 2026: The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has set aside a trial court decree granting specific performance in a long-running property dispute from Dhamtari and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, holding that two foundational issues were never properly examined. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, ruled that the trial court failed to frame and decide issues on the plaintiff’s continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract and on the admissibility of an unregistered agreement to sell that allegedly involved delivery of possession.
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Dhamtari, which had decreed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement to sell dated July 26, 2010, relating to land and a double-storeyed house at Vivekanand Nagar. The plaintiff claimed to have paid Rs. 15 lakh as advance consideration and asserted readiness to complete the transaction, while the defendants, who are legal heirs of the original owner late Rakesh Kumar Yadav, denied the agreement and questioned its validity. They alleged that the executant was suffering from serious mental illness at the relevant time and contended that the document was forged, inadequately stamped, and unregistered despite recording delivery of possession.
While examining the record, the High Court noted that the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff showed that possession of part of the property had already been handed over. Such a document, the Bench observed, could assume the character of a conveyance and would therefore require proper stamping and compulsory registration. Although the trial court had flagged this objection during evidence and stated that admissibility would be decided at the final stage, it ultimately failed to return any finding on the issue before decreeing the suit. The High Court held that leaving such a core question undecided amounted to a serious illegality going to the root of the matter.
Equally significant was the absence of a specific issue on readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The Bench reiterated settled law that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness from the date of the agreement until the conclusion of the suit. Without a properly framed issue, the parties were deprived of an opportunity to lead focused evidence on this essential requirement, rendering the decree legally unsustainable.
After surveying Supreme Court precedents on the discretionary nature of specific performance and the strict standards governing readiness and willingness, the High Court concluded that the trial court’s approach could not be sustained. The judgment and decree dated September 28, 2018, were therefore set aside, and the suit was remanded with directions to frame appropriate issues on readiness and willingness as well as on the admissibility of the agreement to sell, and to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving both sides a full opportunity to present their case.
Case Details : FA No. 617 of 2018, Mamta Yadav vs. Mohammad Akmal Rizvi and Another; Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vinay Shrivastava and Mr. Sandeep Patel; Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate.
