Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A. V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Rokkam Surya Prakasa Rao, S/o. Udaya Bhaskara Rao - Appellant
Versus
Vandana Murali Mohan, S/o. late Satyanarayana - Respondent
Appeal Suit No.956 Of 2017
Decided On : 27-07-2023
specific performance - agreement of sale - Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 - material alteration - time of essence of the contract
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale. The defendant denied the allegations in the plaint and contended that the agreement was materially altered. The issues settled for trial were whether the time was the essence of the contract, whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the advance amount.
Finding of the Court:
The learned Principal District Judge decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting specific performance of the agreement of sale and directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed within three months from the date of the judgment. The defendant appealed the decision.
Issues: The issues included whether the time was the essence of the contract, whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the advance amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the time was not the essence of the contract, the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and the agreement of sale was not affected by material alteration. The court also held that the agreement, though compulsorily registrable, could be admitted in evidence in a suit for specific performance under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
1. The judgment, dated 29.06.2017 in O.S.No.37 of 2013, on the file of Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, is under challenge in the present appeal filed by the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit.
2. The parties to this Civil Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, for the sake of convenience.
3. The plaintiff before the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam, filed the suit seeking specific performance of agreement of sale, which was decreed on contest. Felt aggrieved by the said judgment, the unsuccessful defendant filed the present appeal.
4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, according to the plaint averments, is as follows:
(ii) The defendant did not come forward to get the land surveyed as per the terms of the agreement within three months of the agreement. In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators who are also the attestors of the agreement and in spite of readiness of the plaintiff to get the sale deed registered by paying the balance sale consideration, the defendant did not turn up. The defendant has knowledge that the plaintiff has the financial capacity to pay the balance sale consideration and registration expenses. The defendant with a malafide intention prolonged the issue.
(iii) Therefore, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 04.07.2012 requesting him to get the land surveyed with the assistance of Field Measurement Book and a Surveyor within a week of receipt of the notice and to register the sale deed in his favour. The defendant received the notice and got issued a reply on 27.07.2012 with all false allegations. The defendant having admitted the execution of agreement have made false allegations to the effect that he moved around the plaintiff for a period of six months to get the sale deed registered and the plaintiff expressed his inability to get the sale deed registered, as such, he informed the plaintiff that the agreement is cancelled. The defendant also stated in his reply notice that the cost of land shall be subject to the date of registration, which reflects the malafide motive of the defendant to perform his part of contract. The defendant got issued a reply notice by forgetting that he is guilty of the breach of terms of the agreement by not performing his part of contract. The contents of his reply speak volumes about the nature of the defendant to draw more money than what is agreed upon under the agreement. The plaintiff was and is always ready right from the date of agreement till the date with balance sale consideration, registration charges and other incidental expenses to get the sale deed registered and it is within the knowledge of the defendant. In fact, it is the defendant who tried to
AI
The main legal points established in the judgment include the interpretation of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, the determination of whether time is of the essence in a contract, and the co....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that adherence to timelines agreed upon between parties is a matter of clear obligation, and failure to perform obligations disentitles a party fro....
The court ruled that time is not an essence of contract in specific performance cases, and the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance despite the trial court's dismissal.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance of the agreement of sale despite the defendant's claims, as the suit was filed within the limitation period and time was not ....
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
