Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
Dudala Sarojinamma died – Appellant
Versus
Vannepenta Ramanamma – Respondent
Appeal Suit No.8 of 2011
Decided on : 04-07-2023
Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - Code of Civil Procedure - 96 - Ex.A1 - Ex.A2 - Ex.A7 - Ex.A11
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale for a property. The defendants, who inherited the property, agreed to sell it to the plaintiff for a specified amount. The plaintiff paid an advance but failed to pay the remaining balance by the agreed date. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting specific performance of the contract.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court correctly appreciated the facts of the case and came to a correct conclusion. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff lacked the financial capacity to pay the balance sale consideration. The trial court's findings were accurate, and there was no need for interference except for awarding interest on the balance sale consideration amount.
Issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 29.12.2006? 2) To what relief?
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff lacked the financial capacity to pay the balance sale consideration. The trial court's findings were accurate, and there was no need for interference except for awarding interest on the balance sale consideration amount.
Final Decision: The Appeal is allowed in part. The Judgment and decree dated 14.12.2010 passed in O.S.No.67 of 2007 by the learned Principal District Judge, Nellore, is hereby confirmed to the relief of specific Performance with costs. The Judgment and decree dated 14.12.2010 in the O.S.No.67 of 2007 shall stand modified and direct the 1st respondent/plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.19,05,500/- within two months from the date of this Judgment (if not already deposited), and the Plaintiff is further directed to deposit the amount towards interest @ 12% per annum on the balance sale consideration from 01.06.2007 till the date of deposit of such amount in the Court. On such deposit, the defendants 2 and 3 shall execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within one month, failing which, the Court shall execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. After execution of the sale deed, the defendants 2 and 3 are entitled to withdraw the amount deposited in the Court. In the facts and circumstances, the parties have to bear their costs in the Appeal.
JUDGMENT :
1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the appellants/defendants 1 to 3 challenging the decree and Judgment dated 14.12.2010 in O.S.No.67 of 2007 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nellore (for short, ‘the trial court’). The 1st respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.67 of 2007 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 29.12.2006, registered on 30.12.2006.
2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The brief averments of the plaint are as under:
(b) All the aforementioned conditions were included in the said sale agreement and was registered as a document No.3013/2006 at the Sub Registrar’s Office, Buchireddipalem, on 30.12.2006. The defendants 1 to 3 utilized the advance payment and failed to fulfill their obligations under the agreement. They failed to receive the balance of sale consideration till 01.06.2007 by postponing the same on some pretext. The plaintiff waited till 04.06.2007, hoping that defendants 1 to 3 would positively react to her persuasions. Still, there was no response from them. Subsequently the plaintiff got issued a legal notice calling upon them to fulfill their contractual obligations by receiving the balance payment.
(c) Defendants 1 to 3 received a notice. They got issued notice on 06.06.2007. The plaintiff waited for a response from the defendants until 15.06.2007 as she had set the dead line for receiving the balance payment. As the defendants 1 to 3 did not respond, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale.
4. A detailed written statement filed on behalf of the 2nd defendant which is adopted by defendants 1 and 3, the contents of which in brief as follows:
(b) The plaintiff despite agreeing to pay the balance of sale consideration on or before 01.06.2007, failed to do so even after repeated demands from the defendants. The defendants got issued a notice on 06.06.2007 stating that the agreement of sale dated 29.12.2006 was cancelled, and the advance amount was forfeited. The plaintiff being aware of this notice, subsequently issued another notice with ante-date as 04.06.2007. The plaintiff had no capacity to purchase the same.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 29.12.2006?
(2) To what relief?
6. During the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, and Exs.A1 to A.11 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined, and no documents were marked.
7. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs by granting specific performance of the
The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, and the defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff lacked the financial capacity to pay the balance sale considerati....
![Dudala Sarojinamma [died] VS Dudala Rama Prasad](https://cdn.supremetoday.ai/static/img/news-place-holder.png)
(1) Specific performance of agreement of sale –Alternative plea of refund of earnest amount and damage could not be bar to claiming decree for specific Performance of contract.(2) Specific performanc....
(1) Specific performance – Ordinary rule is that specific performance should be granted – It ought to be denied only when equitable considerations point to its refusal and circumstances show that dam....
The plaintiffs must prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract in order to be entitled to the relief of specific performance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Plaintiff consistently demonstrated readiness and willingness to fulfill his contractual obligations, while the Defendants evaded their re....
The plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract within the stipulated time precluded him from obtaining the relief of specific performance.
Time is of the essence of a contract if the parties have agreed that it is or if the circumstances of the case show that it is.
The Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, and time can be made of the essence through express terms or circumstances.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
