Kiran Raj

The Calcutta High Court, in an appellate decision dated January 21, 2025, upheld the dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The judgment, delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar,stated that the defendant, Mohan Singh Chopra, lacked the title to transfer the property in question, thereby rendering the agreement unenforceable. The court observed that granting specific performance in such circumstances would result in enforcing a legally untenable transaction.

The appeal arose from a suit for specific performance filed by the appellant, Pramod Shroff, against the respondent, Mohan Singh Chopra, concerning Flat No. 61 in Shalimar Apartments. The suit was initially dismissed by the City Civil Court at Calcutta on October 26, 2017, leading to the present appeal.

The appellant contended that the trial court erred in dismissing the suit outright, arguing that even if the defendant did not possess absolute ownership, the court could have granted specific performance concerning whatever rights the defendant had in the property. The appellant further relied on Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which allows for partial enforcement of a contract in cases where full performance is not possible. Additionally, it was argued that amendments to Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, effective from October 1, 2018, had removed judicial discretion in granting specific performance when the necessary conditions were met.

The factual background revealed that the property was originally leased for 75 years by the owner to the Khimjis, who later entered into a partnership to construct Shalimar Apartments. The property changed hands multiple times before the respondent entered into an agreement for sale with the appellant on January 21, 1977. The suit for specific performance was filed on January 21, 2007, after the appellant demanded execution of the sale deed, which was refused by the respondent.

The division bench observed that, as per the agreement, the defendant did not possess any saleable title to transfer ownership of the flat. The court noted that while Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act permits partial enforcement in certain cases, it is applicable only where the seller has some transferable interest in the property. In this instance, since the defendant held no ownership rights, no part of the contract could be specifically enforced.

The court also addressed the limitation argument, stating that although the agreement allowed the appellant to demand execution of the sale deed at any time, the plaintiff’s long delay in asserting the claim was notable. However, since the cause of action arose in 2007 and the suit was filed the same year, the claim was not barred by limitation.

The bench further rejected the appellant’s reliance on Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which provides protection against eviction for those in possession under a written agreement. The court clarified that this provision is only relevant as a defense against eviction and does not create an independent right to claim specific performance.

Regarding the amendments to Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the court held that the trial court’s decision, delivered before the 2018 amendment, was governed by the previous legal framework, wherein courts had discretion to refuse specific performance even when conditions were met. The court noted that in any case, the lack of title made the relief of specific performance legally impossible.

The Calcutta High Court, affirming the trial court’s decision, dismissed the appeal, concluding that the absence of title in the defendant made enforcement of the agreement untenable. The court stated that it cannot create a new agreement between the parties and mandate execution of a lease when the contract specifically pertained to a sale. The judgment also stated that an alternative claim for damages was not pursued by the appellant, rendering further discussion on compensation unnecessary.

Conclusion Case Title: Pramod Shroff v. Mohan Singh Chopra
Case Number: F.A.T. No. 47 of 2018
Bench: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar

[Read/Download order]