PRAKASH CHANDRA versus NARAYAN

Citation: [2012] 5 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 23-04-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 444 
PRAKASH CHANDRA 
v. 
NARAYAN 
(Civil Appeal No. 8102 of 2012) 
APRIL 23, 2012 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI 
MUKHOPADHAYA] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s. 20(2}{b) - Suit for specific 
C performance - Defence of hardship under - Held: In a case 
of specific performance, hardship is a good defence provided 
such defence is taken by the defendant and evidence in 
support of such defence is brought on record - On facts, trial 
court finding all issues with regard to appellant's entitlement 
D to relief for specific performance of agreement for sale of land 
in favour of the appellant, decreed the suit - First appellate 
court, though answered all the issues in favour of the 
appellant but set aside the decree as it factually found that 
the respondent would be landless as against the appellant 
E who is having various businesses as well - Order upheld by 
the High Court in second appeal - Trial court and the first 
appellate court did not frame issue relating to the hardship 
of the respondent - No such defence was taken nor any 
evidence was brought on record in its support by the 
F respondent - Question as to whether the grant of relief for 
specific performance would cause hardship to the defendant 
within the meaning of Clause (b) of subsection (2) of Section 
20, is a question of fact - First appellate court without framing 
such an issue erred in reversing the finding of the trial court 
G while concurring with it on all other issues with regard to the 
appellant's entitlement to relief for specific performance of 
contract - High Court also erred in dismissing the second 
appeal - Thus, the appellant is entitled to the specific 
H 
444 
PRAKASH CHANDRA v. NARAYAN 
445 
performance of agreement for sale - Order passed by the High 
A 
Court and the first appellate court set aside. 
B 
Appellant filed a suit for specific performance of 
agreement for sale of agricultural land against respondent 
and alternatively to refund the earnest money. The trial 
court decreed the suit for specific performance. The 
respondent filed an appeal. The first appellate court 
though answered all the issues in favour of the appellant 
but set aside the decree allowing discretion in favour of 
the respondent by directing him to pay earnest money, 
since it factually found that the respondent would be 
C 
landless as against the appellant who is having various 
business as well. The appellant then filed second appeal. 
The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the same. 
Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 From the materials on record and the 
agreement dated 18th April, 1996 and from the judgment 
D 
of the trial court and the first appellate court, it is evident 
that no issue relating to the hardship of the respondent 
E 
was framed. In a case of specific performance, hardship 
is a good defence provided such defence is taken by the 
defendant and evidence in support of such defence is 
brought on record, while in this case no such defence 
was taken by the respondent and no evidence was 
brought on record in its support. [Para 13] [451-C-E] 
F 
1.2 The appellant specifically pleaded that the 
respondent possessed agricultural land which was not 
denied by the respondent. The appellant proved that an 
G 
agreement was reached between the parties on 18th April, 
1996 to sell southern portion of land by making an east-
west boundary for the consideration of Rs. 51,000/- for 
which appellant had paid Rs.39,000/- to the respondent 
H 
446 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 
A as earnest money. The appellant also proved that he was 
always ready and willing to perform his part of the 
contract. These issues were decided in favour of the 
appellant. During cross examination the respondent 
stated that he sold only part of land during the pendency 
8 of the case, thereby remaining 2.25 cultivable and 0.88 
uncultivable land is still available with the respondent. 
[Para 14] [451-E-H] 
1.3 The question as to whether the grant of relief for 
specific performance would cause hardship to the 
C defendant within the meaning of Clause (b) of subsection 
(2) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, being a 
question of fact, the first appellate court without framing 
such an issue ought not to have reversed the finding of 
the trial court while concurring with it on all other issues 
D with regard to the appellant's entitlement to relief for 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.