MOOT COURT PROBLEM OF CIVIL NATURE

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, DELHI

SUIT N0. 20 OF 2002

IN THE MATTER OF

K.M SAHNI

(PLAINTIFF)

V S.

S.R. TRIPATHI & ANR.

(DEFENDANT)

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

COUNSELS FOR THE DEFENCE

1|Page
TABLE OF CONTENT page no.

LIST OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………… 3
• Case law……………………………………………………………… 3

LIST OF aBBReVIaTION…………………………………………………. 4

sTaTeMeNT OF JURIsDICTION………………………………………… 5

sTaTeMeNT OF FaCTs…………………………………………………… 6-7

IssUe RaIseD………………………………………………………………… 8

STATEMENT OF aRGUMeNT……………………………………………… 9

aRGUMeNT aDVaNCeD……………………………………………………. 10 – 13
• AGREEMENT BREACHED BY WHOM….…………………… 10
• WHO IS LIABLE FOR NON- PERFORMANCE.……………… 10
• aGReeMeNT Is ValID OR NOT………………………………. 11 – 12
• IS DeFeNDaNT lIaBle FOR PaY COMPeNsaTION…… 12 - 13

PRaYeR…………………………………………………………………………. 14

2|Page
 LIST OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

• SURENDRA KAUR VS. BAHUDUR SINGH.

• PRAVEEN GARG VS. SATPAL SINGH & ANR.

• LRS OF BHIVANA RAM VS. SOHAN RAM.

BOOK REFFERED

• POLLOCK & MULLA ON INDIAN CONTRACT ACT.

• BARE ACT INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872.

• BARE ACT SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963.

WEBSITE REFFERED

• WWW.MANUPATRAFAST.COM

• WWW.LEXISNEXIS.COM

• https://indiankanoon.org

• https://livelaw.in

• WWW.BARANDBENCH.COM

3|Page
 LIST OF ABBRIVATION

1. CPC………………………… CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

2. &................................................ AND

3. SEC…………………………… SECTION

4. S.R.A…………………………... SEPECIFIC RELIEF ACT

5. S.C……………………………. SUPREME COURT

6. H.C……………………………. HIGH COURT

4|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

ACCORDING TO SEC 9 OF CPC, THIS COURT SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION TO

TRY ALL SUITS OF A CIVIL NATURE EXCEPTING SUITS OF WHICH THEIR
COGNIZANCE IS EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY BARRED.

5|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The brief facts of the case are the plaintiff is filed present suit for specific
performance of the contract for sale of land in respect of an area measuring 2 acres
situated in Khasra number 32 village, Mehrauli, Delhi.
2. Pet on 16th June 2001. The defendant executed on agreement agreeing to sell the A 4
sides land within 9 months for a total consideration of race 15,00,000 of which
5,00,000 were received by the defendant on the set date.
3. And the balance amount of race 10,00,000 was to be paid by the plaintiff at the time
of execution of the sale deed. Thereafter, the plaintiff offered to pay the balance
consideration of breast in lakhs several times to the defendant. But the defendant
avoided execution of the sale deed.
4. Since the 9 months. I just stipulated in the agreement was to expire on 15 March
2002, the plaintiff inform the defendant that he was willing to go to the House of the
defendant for execution. Registration of sale deed. This information was given on
dated 11 march 2002.
5. On dated 13 March 2002, the plaintiff was informed by the defendants advocate that
the defendant was ready to execute the sale date on 14 March 2002. But she wanted
15 days’ time to remove his house from the land in question and that the position
would be delivered to the plaintiff on the same day.
6. Accordingly, the plaintiff with his wife and the sub-register on Commission, arrived
at the House of the plant. On 14th March 2002, 4 execution and registration of sale
deed but they defended wanted 9 months’ time to vacate the land, refused to execute
the sale deed and the sub registrar return without registering the documents.
7. It is on these facts, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree directing the defendant include
the sale deed, registered the same, and delivered vacant position of aforesaid land to
the plaintiff in the alternative aplenty, paid for refund. Fresh 5,00,000 paid as earnest
money and compensation of race 5,00,000 from the defendant for non-performance of
agreement sale.
8. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and took the plea inter
alia, that the plaintiff failed to tender the balance consideration of 1,00,000 and hence
the sale deed was not executed by the defendant and the earnest money of this

6|Page
5,00,000 was forfeited by the defendant. On the aforesaid pleadings, issues Were
framed by the court and evidence oral documentary where odd used it by the parties.

7|Page
 ISSUE RAISED

I. WHETHER THE AGREEMENT BREACH BY DEFENDANT SIDE OR

PLAINTIFF SIDE?

II. WHICH SIDE IS LIABLE FOR NON-PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT?

III. WHETHER AGREEMENT IS VALID OR VOID͘?

IV. WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS LIBLE FOR COMPENSATION OR NOT?

8|Page
 STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT

I. WHETHER THE AGREEMENT BREACH BY DEFENDANT SIDE

OR PLAINTIFF SIDE?

Firstly, the defendant has already agreed to transfer the property, it shows by
evidence that before expiration of 9-month period, the defendant wants to
complete the agreement.

But, plaintiff himself delay this deal, it was evident that the delay in payment of
Rs. 10 lakh leads this deal get delayed.

II. WHICH SIDE IS LIABLE FOR NON-PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT?

Non-performance means which side exit his liability or the agreement is in dispute
which side non perform his duties.

In my opinion it is clear cut evident that plaintiff is liable for non-performance of

the agreement, because plaintiff fails to give the Rs. 10 lakhs to the defendant.

III. WHETHER THE SPECIFIC RELEIF WILL BE ISSUED TO PLAINTIFF OR

NOT?

No, there are several judgments of supreme court, in which supreme court says
that the specific relief is only given when there is specific need is occurred and
also when the parties reach to court should reach with clean hands.
IV. WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS LIABLE FOR
COMPENSATION OR NOT?

According to sale deed the plaintiff has to give 10 lakh rupees to the defendant,
but there is no evidence which is clear cut shows that the plaintiff carries 10 lakh
rupees to the defendant house.

9|Page
 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE AGREEMENT BREACH BY DEFENDANT

SIDE OR PLAINTIFF SIDE?

It is clear by the facts that the plaintiff himself not want to pay the full consideration,
because the any fact which is mentioned above, not shows that plaintiff himself
carries the amount of ten lakh, also in agreement nothing is mentioned about the mode
of payment, procedure of payment, also there is no mention about the structure above
that land.

Loss which is caused by the plaintiff failure to fulfil his duty, is not recoverable from
the defendant. A party to a contract cannot be in better position by reason of his own
default, then if he had fulfilled his obligation.

2. WHICH SIDE IS LIABLE FOR NON-PERFORMANCE OF

CONTRACT?

Definitely, the plaintiff has himself is a wrongdoer, like there is reciprocal promise
between the plaintiff and defendant, according to sec 51 of Indian contract act,
promiser not bound to perform, unless reciprocal promises to be simultaneously
performed, no promisor need perform his promise unless the promise is ready and
willing to perform his reciprocal promise.

Example – A and B contract that A shall deliver goods to B to be paid for by B on

delivery. A need not deliver the goods, unless B is ready and willing to pay for the
goods on delivery. B need not pay for the goods, unless A is ready and willing to
deliver them on payment.

10 | P a g e
 3. WHETHER THE SPECIFIC RELEIF WILL BE ISSUED TO
PLAINTIFF OR NOT?

There were several cases in which supreme court cited that there is proper need and
care to solve these situations arise, there is need to check that plaintiff should take
proper care for this agreement, also there is no fault on plaintiff side.

SURENDRA KAUR VS. BAHADUR SINGH.1

A recent judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Surinder Kaur
v. Bahadur Singh highlighted the court’s discretion in granting the relief of specific
performance as has been discussed in previous cases as well. Specific performance
can only be issued in exceptional cases. For being entitled to get the relief of specific
performance, the aggrieved party in a contract must have fulfilled all necessary
conditions and must also ensure that there are no loopholes on his part. Only then can
the relief of specific performance be granted. In this case, the Supreme Court bench
consisting of Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose while deciding on the
question as to whether a vendee who fails to perform one of his promises as
mentioned in the contract can be subjected to the relief of specific performance for
that contract or not came to the conclusion that if there is an absence of duty on the
part of one of the parties of the country, he will not be entitled to the relief of specific
performance.

Along with the carrying out of the duty, the party must prove the same in front of the
court as well. The court paid attention to Section16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
as well. The Section provides that it is incumbent for the party who demands the
enforcement of the specific performance for his contract, to make the court believe
that he has performed all his duties diligently or that he always had the willingness to
carry out the activity as have been in the contract. The court rested its decision
abiding by the provision under sub-clause(c) of subsection (2) of Section 20 which
states that even if the contract in consideration is not declared as voidable, the
circumstances surrounding the contract makes it inequitable for the specific

1
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 74247425 OF 2011.
11 | P a g e
 performance to be enforced. The court in such cases can refuse to grant a
discretionary relief.

PRAVEEN GARG VS. SATPAL SINGH & ANR.2

The Delhi High Court while considering the case of Praveen Garg vs Satpal Singh &
Anr took into consideration Section 20 and Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief
Act,1963. The case revolves around the fact that the plaintiff was a government
contractor who was engaged in the construction business and was looking for a
property.

The plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell with the respondent for his property by
paying a certain amount of consideration. No documents related to the transfer of title
of property from the respondent to that of the plaintiff were disclosed to the plaintiff.
There was a delay in the disclosure of documents and in the meantime, the plaintiff
due to financial incapacity failed to complete the transactions involved in the sale.
The respondent had filed a suit claiming the decree of specific performance on the
part of the plaintiff.

The civil court was with the opinion that the decree cannot be granted on grounds that
when the agreement was entered into by the parties, the plaintiff did not get the title of
ownership of possession on the respondent’s property. The High Court agreed with
the decision of the trial court as the relief mentioned under Section 20 is clearly
discretionary by nature. Further Section 16(c) states that there must be a willingness
on the part of the parties which was successfully matched in case of the plaintiff and
therefore there was no reason to file a decree against him. The court rested its decision
on this basis only.

4. WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS LIBLE FOR COMPENSATION

OR NOT?

2
RFA. N0. 383 OF 2018
12 | P a g e
 No, defendant is not liable for pay the compensation to the plaintiff, according to sec
20 of Indian contract act says that if the both the parties are in mistake of fact, which
is very necessary to the basis of agreement, then the agreement is void.

LRS OF BHIVNA RAM VS. SOHAN RAM.3

The Hon'ble Supreme Court perused the paras 6 to 11 of the plaint which indicated
readiness and willingness of the plaintiff and the contention that the conduct of the
plaintiff disentitles him to the relief of specific performance was not accepted.

In the said case of Motilal Jain, another contention was raised that as the plaintiff has
claimed compensation in lieu of specific performance, he has disentitled himself to
claim specific performance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that such a claim was
in accord with the provisions of Section 21 of the Act and merely because the plaintiff
claims damages as alternative relief, it cannot be said that he was not entitled to the
main relief. In that view of the matter, the appeal of the plaintiff was allowed and the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court was restored.
Provided that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such compensation in the plaint
the Court shall, at any stage at the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such
terms as may be just, for including a claim for such compensation.

Explanation-The circumstances that the contract has become incapable of specific

performance does not preclude the Court from exercising the jurisdiction conferred by
this section."

In a plaint omitting to state averments required by Section 16(c) of Act, the

significance of the claim of relief of compensation not in addition but in substitution
of the relief of specific performance cannot be ignored.

3
2005 (4) WLC 34.
13 | P a g e
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities
cited, this honourable court may be pleased to:

➢ Declare that the defendant will not liable for compensation to the plaintiff.

Pass any other order, which the court may deem fit in light of justice, equity and good
conscience.

All of which respectfully submitted

Counsel for the defendant

14 | P a g e