The amendment to the Specific Relief Act by Act 18 of 2018 is prospective and does not apply to transactions that occurred before the amendment (!) . There's a distinction between "readiness" and "willingness." "Readiness" refers to the plaintiff's capacity to fulfill the contract, including their financial ability to pay the sale consideration, while "willingness" pertains to the party's conduct (!) . A suit for specific performance can be filed even on the last day of the limitation period as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (!) . However, the plaintiff must explain and prove the steps taken from the agreement date to the suit filing date, which was lacking in this case (!) . The plaintiff did not produce satisfactory evidence to prove their readiness and willingness to perform the contract (!) . The plaintiff's conduct, including a significant delay in issuing a legal notice and filing the suit, indicated a lack of continuous readiness and willingness (!) (!) (!) . The trial court correctly refused to grant the equitable relief of specific performance due to the plaintiff's unexplained delay and inaction (!) . The High Court and the First Appellate Court erred in granting the relief of specific performance without proper reasoning (!) (!) . The judgment of the trial court is restored, and the appeal is allowed (!) .

Pydi Ramana @ Ramulu vs Davarasety Manmadha Rao

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 571

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR
Pydi Ramana @ Ramulu – Appellant
Versus
Davarasety Manmadha Rao – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv. Mr. Bhoumik Nayyar, Adv. Ms. Yatika Gupta, Adv. Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv. Ms. Anu Priya Nisha Minz, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR

Judgement Key Points

The amendment to the Specific Relief Act by Act 18 of 2018 is prospective and does not apply to transactions that occurred before the amendment (!) .
There's a distinction between "readiness" and "willingness." "Readiness" refers to the plaintiff's capacity to fulfill the contract, including their financial ability to pay the sale consideration, while "willingness" pertains to the party's conduct (!) .
A suit for specific performance can be filed even on the last day of the limitation period as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (!) . However, the plaintiff must explain and prove the steps taken from the agreement date to the suit filing date, which was lacking in this case (!) .
The plaintiff did not produce satisfactory evidence to prove their readiness and willingness to perform the contract (!) .
The plaintiff's conduct, including a significant delay in issuing a legal notice and filing the suit, indicated a lack of continuous readiness and willingness (!) (!) (!) .
The trial court correctly refused to grant the equitable relief of specific performance due to the plaintiff's unexplained delay and inaction (!) .
The High Court and the First Appellate Court erred in granting the relief of specific performance without proper reasoning (!) (!) .
The judgment of the trial court is restored, and the appeal is allowed (!) .

JUDGMENT :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. The appellant who is the original defendant before the trial Court has preferred this appeal questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment dated 07.06.2011 whereunder the second appeal filed by him in S.A No.1282 of 2008 came to be partly allowed, confirming the order of the appellate court passed in A.S. No.39 of 2004 which granted the relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff and directed the respondent-plaintiff to pay additional sale consideration namely twice the sale consideration.

2. We have heard the arguments of Shri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellant and Shri D. Bharat Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent perused the records.

Brief Background

3. The respondent herein who was the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 07.06.1993 by contending inter alia that appellant-defendant had agreed to sell the property measuring Ac.1.38 cents for a total consideration of Rs.705/- per cent as per the terms reduced by way of an agreement executed on the same day whereunder plaintiff claimed to have paid an advance amount of Rs.2,005/- and defendant agree

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 571

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMARPydi Ramana @ Ramulu – AppellantVersusDavarasety Manmadha Rao – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ARAVIND KUMAR
Pydi Ramana @ Ramulu – Appellant
Versus
Davarasety Manmadha Rao – Respondent