The Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur has directed the execution of a sale deed in favor of the buyer, setting aside a trial court decision that had denied specific performance of a land sale agreement. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal delivered the judgment on October 8, 2025, allowing the appeal filed by Sanjit Kumar Vishwakarma.
The case stemmed from an agreement executed on November 27, 2012, between Vishwakarma (the buyer) and Rupesh Kumar Sahu (the seller) for the sale of agricultural land measuring 1.23 hectares in Village Patora, Tahsil Patan, District Durg. The total sale consideration was ₹10.3 lakh, of which ₹7 lakh was paid in advance. The seller later failed to complete the registration of the sale deed, prompting the buyer to seek specific performance of the contract.
The 8th Additional District Judge, Durg, in 2019, declined to grant specific performance, citing possible future disputes among the legal heirs of one of the co-owners who had passed away during the pendency of the case. Instead, the court had ordered a refund of ₹7 lakh with 6% interest to the buyer.
On appeal, the High Court found that the trial court had exercised its discretion “arbitrarily and contrary to judicial principles.” The Bench emphasized that under Section 20 of the unamended Specific Relief Act, 1963, discretion to deny specific performance can only be exercised if the defendant pleads and proves unforeseen hardship — which the defendants had failed to do.
Justice Agrawal noted that the defendants never pleaded hardship or presented evidence showing that performing the contract would cause them difficulties they did not foresee. The court further observed that the identity and description of the land were clearly defined in the sale agreement and that the buyer had demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
Citing Supreme Court precedents such as Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi (2019), Beemaneni Mahalaxmi v. Gangumalla Appa (2019), and Parswanath Saha v. Bandhana Modak (2024), the Bench held that denial of specific performance was unjustified.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court directed that upon payment of the balance sale consideration of ₹3.3 lakh, the defendants must execute the sale deed within 30 days. If they fail to do so, the trial court has been authorized to execute the deed on behalf of the defendants.
The judgment reiterates the principle that once a valid contract and consideration are established, and no equitable hardship is proven, specific performance must be granted as a rule rather than an exception.
Case Details : First Appeal No. 408 of 2019, Sanjit Kumar Vishwakarma vs Rupesh Kumar Sahu and Others
For Appellant : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent 1 : None though served
For Respondents 2 and 3 : Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent 4 : Mr. Ratan Pusty, G.A.
