R.V.RAVEENDRAN, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
Saradamani Kandappan – Appellant
Versus
S. Rajalakshmi – Respondent
Key Points: - Time is the essence of the contract for payment of balance price; failure to pay triggers cancellation. (!) (!) (!) - Payment of balance price is unconditional and not dependent on purchaser’s satisfaction of title; execution of sale deed occurs after full payment. (!) (!) - The contract contains two streams of performance: (i) payment of balance price on fixed dates; (ii) execution of sale deed upon purchaser’s demand, not time-bound. (!) (!) - The purchaser’s claim that oral modification extended payment dates was rejected; time remained essential for payments. (!) (!) - Encumbrances and title defects: vendor must disclose material defects and furnish title documents; failure to disclose may affect remedies and time considerations. (!) (!) (!) (!) - If one party prevents performance, contract becomes voidable or other remedies apply under reciprocal-promises framework. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
R. V. Raveendran J. —
These appeals by special leave (CA Nos.7254 to 7256 of 2002) are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 19.6.2002 passed by the Madras High Court in O.S.A. Nos.12 of 1992, 32 of 1995 and 148 of 1999 filed by the appellant herein against the common judgment dated 29.11.1991 passed by a learned Single Judge of that court in Civil Suit Nos. 95/1984, 302/1989 and 170/1984 and filed by the respondents herein. The appellants and respondents herein who were the plaintiffs and defendants respectively in the three suits, will be referred, for the purpose of convenience, by their ranks in the suit also.
2. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are respectively the son, daughter and husband of first respondent. The first respondent is the owner of Survey Nos. 13, 14 and 15, the second respondent is the owner of lands bearing Survey Nos. 16 and 18 and the third respondent is the owner of Survey Nos. 19 and 20, all situated in Chettiaragaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District in all measuring 24 acres 95 cents. The said lands along with the trees, wells, pump-houses, farm godowns, perimeter fence and some furniture, are together referred to as the ‘sc
Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra
Gomathinayagam Pillai v. Pallaniswami Nadar
Jamshed Khodaram Irani v. Burjorji Dhunjibhai
Bank of India v. Vijay Transport
Govind Prasad Chaturvedi v. Hari Dutt Shastri
National Textile Corporation v. State of Maharashtra
Rattan Arya v. State of Tamil Nadu
Balasaheb Dayandeo Naik (Dead) through LRs. v. Appasaheb Dattatraya Pawar
N. Srinivasa v. Kuttukaran Machine Tools Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 182 – Relied upon [Para 18]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.