SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 604

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
Saradamani Kandappan – Appellant
Versus
S. Rajalakshmi – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

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. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

What is the effect of time being the essence of the contract in a sale of immovable property?

What is the correct order of performance for reciprocal promises in a sale agreement, and how does it affect validity of cancellation?

What are the rights and obligations of the buyer and seller regarding disclosure of encumbrances and title defects, and how do they impact extension of time and remedy?


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


















































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top