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

2023 Supreme(AP) 975

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.Gopala Krishna Rao, J.
P.Sanjeevarayudu, S/o.Nagappa and ors. - Appellants
Versus
B.Lakshminarayana Reddy (died) by L.Rs. and ors. – Respondents
Appeal Suit No.2715 of 2004
Decided On : 07-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri O.Manohar Reddy
For the Respondent: Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy

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.

Headnote:

Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - Code of Civil Procedure - 96 - [SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE] - [AGREEMENT OF SALE] - [Section 16(C) of Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1997, K.S.Vidyanadam and others vs. Vairavan, (1997) 3 SCC 1, Gaddipati Divija and another vs. Pathuri Samrajyam and others 2023 SCC online SC 442, Shenbagam and others v. KK Rathinavel, 2022 SCC online SC 71] - The court discussed the essence of time in the contract, the readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to perform their part of the contract, and the discretionary relief of specific performance. The court highlighted key legal provisions such as Section 16(C) of Specific Relief Act, 1963, and relevant case laws, and concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, and therefore, were not entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale for a property. The defendants contended that time was the essence of the contract and the plaintiffs failed to perform their part of the contract. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiffs appealed the decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the time was the essence of the contract and the plaintiffs failed to prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. Therefore, the court upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the suit for specific performance.

Issues: The issues included whether time was the essence of the contract, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief of specific performance, whether the trial court's decision was justified, and whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needed any interference.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, and therefore, were not entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale. The court also found that the trial court's decision was justified and required no interference.

Final Decision: The appeal suit was dismissed, confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial court.

JUDGMENT :

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellants/plaintiffs challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 14.06.2004, in O.S. No.117 of 1995 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit.

2. The Plaintiffs filed the above said suit for relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 14.08.1991, executed by the 1st defendant and his mother in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs.8,90,000/- after receiving the balance of consideration in respect of suit schedule property and direct delivery of possession.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.117 of 1995, are as under:

    i) The suit was originally filed against the first defendant. On his death, during the pendency of the suit, his legal heirs are added as defendants 2 to 5.

ii) The first defendant and his mother were the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and the mother of first defendant died and her share was devolved upon the first defendant as he being the sole legal heir of his mother. First defendant and his mother agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs for Rs.8,90,000/- and that the plaintiffs paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the first defendant on 14.08.1991 towards advance and the first defendant and his mother executed an agreement of sale. As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the plaintiffs have to pay the balance of sale consideration within ten months from the date of agreement. Though time is stipulated in the agreement for the performance of contract, it was never treated as essence of the contract and the parties never intended to make time as one of the essential conditions of the agreement. Plaintiffs are always ready and willing to perform their part of contract and they paid Rs.90,000/- to first defendant and his mother on 22.12.1991 and that the said payment is endorsed on the back of the agreement. It is further stated that the first defendant should vacate the premises and handover vacant possession of the property and he is also liable to clear all the debts in respect of suit property before asking for the performance on the part of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are always ready and willing to take sale deed from the first defendant and his mother. But the first defendant and his mother without performing their obligation under the agreement, issued a notice dated 17.08.1992 stating that the agreement would stand cancelled if the plaintiffs do not take the sale deed by August, 1992. For that the plaintiffs sent a reply dated 31.08.1992. After receiving the reply, first defendant and his mother kept quiet and in the meanwhile the mother of first defendant died and first defendant did not take any steps for the performance of the agreement. The conduct of first defendant in keeping quiet for a long time clearly shows that time is not treated as essence of the contract. The first defendant again sent another notice dated 18.11.1994 with false allegations and the plaintiffs sent reply on 18.12.1994. The first defendant is evading the performance of contract on one pretext or other, hence the plaintiffs constrained to file the suit.

5. The first defendant filed a written statement by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under : -

    i) The first defendant while admitting the execution of agreement of sale dated 14.08.1991 and also admitting the receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- on the date of agreement and another sum of Rs.90,000/- on 22.12.1991, pleaded that 10 months’ time was fixed for performance of contract and that they agreed to sell the property to enable them to perform the marriages of two daughters of first defendant and to use the remaining balance for the purpose of setting up of a business for

              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 Back to top