Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Chandranath Dutta vs Smt. Dhira Mazumder And Another on 29 July, 2026
Author: Supratim Bhattacharya
Bench: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Supratim Bhattacharya
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
And
The Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
FA No. 102 of 2023
Sri Chandranath Dutta
Vs.
Smt. Dhira Mazumder and another
For the Appellant : Mr. A. C. Kar
Mr. Manoj Kumar Roy
Mr. Anirban Kar
Mr. Rohit Mahato
For the Respondent : Mr. Ayan Banerjee
No. 1 & 2 Mr. Suman Banerjee
Heard On : 16.07.2026
Reserved On : 16.07.2026
Judgment On : 29.07.2026
Supratim Bhattacharya, J.:
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff /appellant being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.12.2021 passed by the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Divn.) 3rd Court Alipore in Title Suit No. 615 of 2016 (Sl.
No. 39 of 2003) through the said judgment the learned Court has been
pleased to dismiss the suit on contest against the defendant.
2. Factual matrix.
Before the Trial Court
2
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DB
The plaintiff /appellant has filed a suit for specific performance of
contract alternatively for damages and recovery of part consideration and
further damages valued at Rs. 24,50,000/- before the learned Civil Judge
(Sr. Divn.) 3rd Court at Alipore, South-24-Parganas being Title Suit No.
39 of 2003 thereafter renumbered as 615 of 2016 praying for
a) Decree for specific performance of contract dated 15.05.2002 against
the defendant calling upon the defendant to execute and register the
deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit
property on receipt of the balance consideration and failing which to get
the deed of conveyance executed and registered through court
according to law on deposit of balance consideration money,
b) Decree for recovery of vacant possession of the suit property,
c) Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from
transferring , alienating and encumbering the suit property,
d) Alternatively a decree for damages and further damages for breach of
contract,
e) For cost,
f) For interim injunction,
g) For such other relief or reliefs which the plaintiff is entitled in law and
equity.
The defendant contested the said suit by filing written statement.
Through the written statement the defendant has controverted and
denied the contentions of the plaintiff made in the plaint.
3
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DB
On the basis of the contentions raised by the parties to the suit the
following issues have been framed. Those are as follows:
ISSUES
1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form in law ?
2) Is there any cause of action to file the present suit ?
3) Is the agreement dated 15.05.2002 still subsisting ?
4) Is the plaintiff ready and willing to comply the terms of
said agreement?
5) Is the plaintiff entitled to the decree of specific
performance of contract as prayed for ?
6) To what other relief/reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to ?
The plaintiff himself namely Chandranath Dutta has adduced
evidence. He has been cross-examined at length.
On behalf of the plaintiff the following documents have been
exhibited :
I) Exhibit 1- Agreement for sale dated 15.05.2002.
II) Exhibit 2- Passbook in respect of a joint savings bank account of the
plaintiff (Chandranath Dutta) and his wife (Anindita Dutta) in the UCO
Bank Bowbazar branch, account No. 5983.
III) Exhibit 3- A letter dated 04.06.2003 issued by a learned Advocate
representing the defendant /respondent namely Sanchayita Chaudhuri
addressed to the plaintiff.
4
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DB
IV) Exhibit 4- Photo Copy of a letter dated 16.06.2003 issued by Messrs
C. Kar the learned Advocate of the appellant.
On behalf of the defendants Amit Mazumder the constituted
attorney of the defendants /respondents has adduced evidence.
The witness has proved the following documents which are as
follows:
a) Exhibit A – General Power of Attorney dated 11.04.2016 issued
by Smt. Dhira Mazumder in favour of Amit Mazumder.
b) Exhibit B – General Power of Attorney dated 28.10.2015 issued
by Sri Abhra Mazumder in favour of Dhira Mazumder and Amit
Mazumder.
c) Exhibit C – Original Aadhar card of Dhira Mazumder, Abhra
Mazumder and Amit Mazumder.
d) Exhibit D – Cheque No. 211877 dated 15.05.2002 issued in the
name of Smritimoy Mazumdar amounting Rs. 2,00,000/- issued by
Indranath Dutta and Chandranath Dutta partners of Sani Trust.
After taking into consideration both oral and documentary
evidence relied upon by both the parties the learned Trial Court has
dismissed the suit on contest which is the bone of contention in the
present first appeal.
Submissions of the Ld. Counsels
3. Mr. Kar, learned Senior counsel for the appellant during his
exhaustive argument has placed the following:
5
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DB
i. That earnest money of Rs. 2,00,000/- have been paid by the
plaintiff/appellant which has been mentioned in the agreement for
sale under the heading “Memo. of consideration” wherein it has
been mentioned that the vendor namely Smritimoy Mazumder has
received Rs. 2,00,000/- from the within named purchaser being
the part payment of the consideration money in the following
manner that is by a cheque of the Standard Chartered Bank
account No. 211877 dated 15.05.2002.
ii. He has further submitted that through the agreement for sale it
has been admitted that the vendor agrees to sale and the
purchaser agrees to purchase all that the land with the building
being premises No. 154C, Rashbehari Avenue, P.S. Lake, Kolkata
more fully and particularly described in the schedule free from all
encumbrances subject to the approval of title by the vendor’s
advocate for the price of Rs. 19,50,000/-.
iii. Ld. Senior Counsel has placed before the Court Section 54 of the
Transfer of Property Act and has highlighted that the sale is a
transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or
part paid and part promised.
iv. He has also brought to the notice of the Court Section 49 of the
Registration Act, 1908 and has submitted that no document
required by Section 17 of the said act or by any provision of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered shall affect any
6
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DBimmovable property comprised therein or confer any power to
adopt or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such
property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered
provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable
property and required by this act or the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in
a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific
Relief Act, 1877 or as evidence of any collateral transaction not
required to be effected by registered instrument. Thus pressing
upon the issue that though the present agreement for sale being
unregistered can be taken into consideration under the Specific
Relief Act.
v. The Ld. Senior Counsel has further submitted that though the
agreement for sale is an unstamped one but it can be taken into
consideration and has stressed upon the issue that the said
document has been marked exhibit without any objection.
vi. The Ld. Senior Counsel has brought to the notice of the Court the
averment made by the defendant through his written statement
that the defendant has entered into an agreement on 15.05.2002
for the sale of premises No. 154C, Rashbehari Avenue, Kolkata –
700029 for a total consideration of Rs. 19,50,000/- only to the
plaintiff.
7
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DB
vii. He has further relied upon the contention that before the
execution of the agreement it was agreed between the parties that
the plaintiff would pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as earnest money
and the plaintiff had handed over an account payee cheque of
Rs. 2,00,000/- at the time of execution of the agreement.
viii. The Ld. Counsel during his argument has relied upon a judgment
of this Court in the case between A.E.G. Carapiet Vs. A.Y.
Derderian published in 1960 SCC Online Calcutta 44 and
has relied upon Paragraph 9 of the said judgment. The Ld. Senior
Counsel has stressed upon the issue that wherever the opponent
has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his
essential and material case in cross -examination, it must follow
that he believed that the testimony could not be disputed at all.
He has further submitted that no suggestion was placed before
the prosecution witness as regard to the issue of request not to
encash the cheque and instead bank draft is to be paid. Relying
upon the said judgment the Ld. Senior Counsel has emphasised
that the respondent did not cross-examine the prosecution
witness during his deposition as regards to the issuance of the
cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- as earnest money by the Sani Trust, so
it signifies that the defendants/respondents have accepted the
same as there has not been any cross-examination of the PW1 on
this aspect.
8
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DB
ix. The Ld. Counsel has further placed before the Court the letter
dated 16.06.2003 issued by Messrs C. Kar Solicitors and
Advocates on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff and has emphasised
on the point that the appellant/plaintiff was always ready and
willing to pay the amount agreed to be paid under the agreement
and has thus stressed upon the point that the appellant /plaintiff
was always ready and willing to pay the remaining consideration
amount.
Banking upon the aforementioned submission the Ld. Counsel
has emphasised time and again that the appellant/plaintiff was
always ready and willing to perform his part as such the
impugned judgment of dismissal of the prayer of specific
performance of contract is ought to be reversed and the present
appeal is to be allowed.
4. Per contra, Mr. Banerjee the learned Counsel representing the
respondents/defendants has controverted the submission made on
behalf of the appellant by submitting the following:
i. The learned counsel has submitted that the agreement for sale
was between two persons that is Smritimoy Mazumdar the
vendor on the one part and Mr. Chandranath Dutta the
intending purchaser on the other.
9
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DB
ii. He has thereafter submitted that the cheque for earnest money
was issued by two partners (Indranath Dutta and
Chandranath Dutta ) of a partnership firm namely Sani Trust.
iii. He has also submitted that the defendant/respondent/ vendor
had never entered into an agreement with a trust or
partnership firm instead had entered into an agreement with a
person namely Chandranath Dutta. So the issuance of cheque
for earnest money by the two partners is nothing but utter
violation of the agreement for sale.
iv. The learned counsel has further submitted that Section 17 of
the Registration Act, 1908 clearly states in detail that non-
testamentary instrument which purport or operate to create,
declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in
future any right, title or interest whether vested or contingent,
of the value of one hundred rupees or upwards, to or in
immovable property shall be registered. He has further
submitted that the present agreement for sale is an
unregistered and unstamped agreement (on a stamp paper of
Rs. 10/-) for sale as such the same cannot be relied upon and
cannot be made a basis for specific performance of contract.
v. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the plaintiff
appellant/ purchaser was never ever ready and willing to play
his part to give effect to the agreement for sale. In this regard
10
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DBthe Ld. Counsel has placed before the court the savings bank
account in the name of the appellant/plaintiff and his wife
and has brought to the notice of the court that during the entire
period between the agreement for sale till the filing of the suit or
thereafter that is till 20.02.2004 the plaintiff /appellant did not
have the requisite amount of money which was required for the
payment of consideration amount. So the Ld. Counsel has
submitted that the intending purchaser /appellant was never
ever ready and willing to give effect to the agreement for sale.
vi. As regards to the issue of willingness to give effect to the
agreement for sale the learned advocate has further submitted
that the intending purchaser was never willing to give effect to
the agreement for sale. He has submitted that in the agreement
for sale it has been mentioned that the balance consideration
money will be paid within eight months from the date of
execution of the agreement and/or at the time of the execution
and registration for the necessary conveyance for sale and the
vendor will be bound to effect registration of the deed of
conveyance at the cost of the purchaser immediately after the
execution of the deed of conveyance within such time of eight
months.
vii. The Ld. Counsel has placed the letter issued by the Ld.
Advocate representing the intending purchaser and submitted
11
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DBthat the said letter has been issued on 16.06.2003 that is after
more than a year from the date of agreement for sale dated
15.05.2002. Stressing upon this point the Ld Counsel has
reiterated that the intending purchaser was never ready and
willing to perform his role as regards to the performance of
contract. In this regard the Ld. Counsel has relied upon a
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between
Mohammed Khaleel (D) Through Lrs and Others Vs.
Jayamma reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1191 and has
relied upon Paragraphs No. 30 and 35 of the said judgment. He
has submitted that the term ‘readiness’ refers to the financial
capacity and the term ‘willingness’ reflects the conduct and
intention of the party seeking the relief to perform the contract.
He has further submitted that financial readiness should be
during the relevant period that is from the date of the
agreement till the filing of the suit.
viii. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that though it is not
mentioned in the agreement for sale that time is not the
essence of the contract but it is fact that in the said agreement
for sale eight months had been mentioned, it signifies that time
was the essence of contract.
Banking upon the aforementioned submission the Ld. Counsel
has reiterated that the intending purchaser/appellant had
12
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DB
never been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract
and as such the appellant/plaintiff is not at all entitled to the
prayer sought for by him as regards to specific performance of
the contract. Thus the Ld. Counsel has submitted that the
impugned judgment dismissing the prayer for specific
performance of the contract passed by the Trial Court is correct
and is not to be interfered with.
5. From the submission of the Ld. Counsels it transpires that the
following points are required to be considered which are as follows:
i) Whether the agreement for sale dated 15.05.2002 though being
not properly stamped and unregistered can be taken into
consideration for the purpose of specific performance of contract?
ii) Whether the plaintiff /appellant is entitled to have a decree of
specific performance of contract ?
Analysis
6. Regarding point No.1:
Whether the agreement for sale dated 15.05.2002 though being not
properly stamped and unregistered can be taken into consideration
for the purpose of specific performance of contract?
As regards to the first point, it is fact that Section 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act lays down the definition which is as follows:
“54. “Sale” defined.–
13
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DB
“Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid
or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
It also lays down how sale can be made.–Such transfer, in
the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one
hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or
other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered
instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a
value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be
made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the
property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place
when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs,
in possession of the property.
As regards to contract for sale it has been laid down.–A
contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that
a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled
between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in
or charge on such property.”
To have a clear picture as regards to registration of a document the two
sections that is Section 17 and Section 49 of the Registration Act are to be read
conjointly.
Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 states the following:
“17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.
(1)The following documents shall be registered, if the property to
which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been
executed on or after the date on which, Act XVI of 1864, or the Indian
Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the
Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force,
namely,
(a)instruments of gift of immovable property
14
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DB
(b)other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to
create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in
future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the
value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable
property;
(c)non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or
payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration,
assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest;
and
(d)leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term
exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;
(e)[non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree
or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award
purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish,
whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether
vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards,
to or in immovable property:] ”
Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 lays down as follows:
“49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to
be registered.
– No document required by section 17 [or by any provision of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882] to be registered shall
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such
property or conferring such power, unless it has been
registered:
[Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable
property and required by this Act, or the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, to be registered may be received as evidence of a
15
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DBcontract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of
the [Specific Relief Act, 1877], or as evidence of any collateral
transaction not required to be effected by registered
instrument.]”
Thus, as per Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 unregistered
agreement for sale can be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for
specific performance.
Insofar as the issue of the agreement being insufficiently stamped
is concerned, despite the defendants having not raised any specific
objection in that regard at the time of exhibiting the same, it was the
duty of the Court to ensure that proper stamp duty is paid before
passing a decree on the basis of the agreement.
However, this deficiency could be cured by the Court by directing
impoundment of the agreement before passing the final decree. Thus,
mere insufficiency of stamp could not be an insurmountable
impediment in passing a decree of specific performance of the
agreement.
So the agreement for sale dated 15.05.2002 can be taken into
consideration in this present lis though being an unregistered and
insufficiently stamped one.
7. Regarding point No.2:
Whether the plaintiff /appellant is entitled to have a decree of specific
performance of contract ?
16
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DB
From the said agreement for sale it transpires that the total
consideration amount for sale of the suit property was agreed at
Rs. 19,50,000/- and for the sake of argument if it is taken into
consideration that Rs. 2,00,000/- had been paid as earnest money so
the remaining amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- ought to have been paid by the
intending purchaser/appellant. From the Exhibit-2 that is the statement
of accounts in respect of the joint savings bank account, in the name of
Chandranath Dutta (appellant) and his wife (Anindita Dutta), in the UCO
Bank Bowbazar branch, it transpires that since the date of agreement
for sale that is 15.05.2002 till 20.02.2004, that is beyond the date of
institution of the suit filed during the year 2003, the appellant /plaintiff
did not ever have sufficient amount that is Rs. 17,50,000/- in the bank
account. The appellant himself has produced this bank account and has
proved and exhibited the same, apart from this the appellant has not
proved any other bank account.
On behalf of the appellant it has also not been argued that the appellant
had been arranging for any loan from any bank or any institution.
So it transpires that the appellant was not ready to pay the balance
consideration amount of Rs. 17,50,000/- to the vendor during the entire
period extending from the date of execution of agreement for sale till the
institution of the suit.
If a person is not having sufficient fund at his disposal then in spite of
his willingness the said person cannot perform the act which he intends
17
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DBto perform. In this case the appellant /plaintiff even for the sake of
argument if it is taken into consideration that he had the willingness to
purchase the property he did not possess the capacity to purchase the
same as such the issue of readiness goes against the intending
purchaser herein the appellant/plaintiff .
As regards to the issue of willingness, in this present case the intending
purchaser/appellant/plaintiff issued a letter through his Ld. Advocate
which has been dated 16.06.2003 stating that the appellant /plaintiff is
ready and willing to pay the amount agreed to be paid under the
agreement but in view of the attitude displayed by the respondent
/defendant the appellant/plaintiff has been advised to file the suit for
specific performance of the contract. So during the entire period of eight
months since the execution of the agreement for sale the
appellant/intending purchaser never showed his willingness to perform
his part of the contract. On the contrary it is through the letter dated
16.06.2003 the appellant has expressed about his willingness to pay the
agreed amount and in addition to that has stated that the appellant has
been advised to file a suit for specific performance of the contract.
So since the date of agreement for sale till eight months thereafter or
thereafter the appellant/intending purchaser was neither ready nor
willing to play his part to give effect to the fulfilment of the agreement for
sale. In this context this Court relies upon Paragraphs 29, 30 and 37 of
18
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DB
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of
Mohammed Khaleel (supra) which states as follows:
“The Statutory mandate of ‘readiness and willingness’
and its continuing nature
29. The relief of specific performance is one based on
equity for enforcing contractual obligations undertaken by the
parties. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (as it
stood prior to the amendment dated 01.10.2018) required the
person seeking specific performance to specifically aver and
prove his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his
obligations. A failure to satisfy these requirements would
ultimately make him disentitled for the relief of specific
performance.
30. The term ‘readiness’ refers to the financial capacity, and
the term ‘willingness’ reflects the conduct and intention of the
party seeking the relief to perform the contract. Thus, both
these conditions cumulatively have to be seen for making out a
case of specific performance.
37. In the present case, there is no material whatsoever to
show that the appellant/plaintiff had the balance sale
consideration available either at the time of execution of the
agreement, within the stipulated period of four months for
performance of the contract, or even at the time of filing of the
suit in the year 1993. Thus, in our view, the High Court has
rightly observed that the availability of funds must be proved
with reference to the relevant point of time and not by relying
upon financial documents generated long after the filing of
the suit.”
So this point of readiness and willingness as regards to the performance
of the contract for sale goes against the appellant as from his statement
of accounts it is apparent that he did not possess the consideration
amount during the relevant period and it is also not the case of the
19
2026:CHC-AS:1142-DB
appellant that he had made arrangement for any financial assistance
from any bank or any financial institution.
8. Conclusion
In view of the above findings this Court does not find any error as
regards to the inference reached at in the impugned judgment and decree
whereby the Ld. Trial Judge has dismissed the suit on contest thereby
refusing to grant specific performance of the agreement dated
15.05.2002.
Accordingly FA 102 of 2023 is dismissed on contest thereby
affirming the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.12.2021 passed
by the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) 3rd Court, Alipore, South-24 Parganas
in Title Suit No. 615 of 2016 ( Sl. No. 39 of 2003).
There will be no order as to costs.
I Agree,
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)
