The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a first appeal filed by a property owner challenging a trial court decree directing him to execute a sale deed in favour of the purchaser under a registered agreement to sell. The Court held that the agreement was duly executed, the buyer had continuously shown readiness to complete the transaction, and the seller failed to establish allegations of fraud or any legal ground to deny specific performance of the contract.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a registered agreement to sell dated December 30, 2019. According to the plaintiff, Ganesh Prasad, the defendant, Tushar Agrawal, agreed to sell his two-storeyed house in Bhadohi for ₹30 lakh. Out of the total sale consideration, ₹20 lakh was allegedly paid through a cheque as earnest money, while the remaining ₹10 lakh was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.
The plaintiff claimed that despite repeated personal requests and legal notices, the defendant did not execute the sale deed. He therefore filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement.
The defendant denied ever agreeing to sell the property. He alleged that the parties had a long-standing business relationship in the silver trade and claimed the plaintiff had fraudulently obtained his signatures by taking advantage of that relationship. He also argued that the amount of ₹20 lakh related to business transactions and not to the property agreement. Further, he contended that the property was worth over ₹2 crore and there was no reason for him to sell it for ₹30 lakh.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Trial Court's Findings
The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadohi, accepted the plaintiff's case and decreed the suit for specific performance. The trial court found that the registered agreement had been validly executed, the earnest money had been paid, and the plaintiff had remained ready and willing to fulfil his contractual obligations throughout. It directed the defendant to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance consideration of ₹10 lakh.
Aggrieved by that decree, the defendant approached the High Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Court's Observations
Justice Sandeep Jain examined the documentary evidence, witness testimony, bank records and the registered agreement placed on record.
The Court noted that the plaintiff had produced the registered agreement, bank statements showing transfer of ₹20 lakh, legal notices issued before filing the suit, and expert evidence regarding the defendant's signatures. During cross-examination, the defendant admitted that ₹20 lakh had been credited to his account, although he maintained that the amount related to business dealings. The Court found that he failed to produce documentary evidence supporting that explanation.
Rejecting the allegation of fraud, the Court observed that the defendant had neither filed any complaint before the police nor initiated proceedings to cancel the registered agreement.
The Court observed,
“The plaintiff was always ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.”
It further held that the defendant failed to establish that the agreement had been procured by fraud or that the payment represented business transactions rather than consideration under the agreement.
The Bench also considered the legal position after the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, it noted that specific performance is no longer merely discretionary and courts are ordinarily required to enforce valid contracts, subject to the statutory exceptions.
Decision
Finding no error in the findings of the trial court, the High Court dismissed the appeal with costs. It affirmed the decree directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months after receiving the remaining sale consideration of ₹10 lakh. The Court further directed that if the defendant failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated period, the plaintiff would be entitled to have the decree enforced in accordance with law.
Case Details:
Case Title: Tushar Agrawal v. Ganesh Prasad
Case Number: First Appeal No. 388 of 2025
Judge: Justice Sandeep Jain
Decision Date: 06 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
