Back
V. R. K. KRUPA SAGAR
M. Venugopal Reddy S/o. Venkatram Reddy – Appellant
Versus
P. Nagappa S/o. Sri P. Venkataramappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
Three defendants in the suit seek intervention of this Court by way of second appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. as against concurrent judgments of two Courts below. Respondent herein is the sole plaintiff in the suit. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement for sale. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.19 of 2007. After due trial, by a judgment dated 21.10.2011 learned Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
2. Defendants preferred first appeal in A.S.No.29 of 2012. After due hearing, learned II Additional District Judge, Hindupur by a judgment dated 22.06.2017 dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.
3. The present second appeal is filed by the defendants questioning the correctness of the judgment of the first appellate Court. Learned counsel on both sides submitted arguments before admission. To consider these submissions, one shall notice the legal proceedings that took place before the Courts below.
4. Various extents of agricultural land spread in four survey numbers totaling Ac.10.35 cents situate in Chilamathur Village in Puleru Village of Gorantla Mandal of Anantapur District are the immovable
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an inadequately stamped and unregistered agreement for sale is admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance.
The plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract precludes specific performance, but the first defendant must return the advance amount with interest.
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
Substantial compliance with a sale agreement, including significant payment, can justify specific performance even in the face of claims of joint ownership.
The plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, the defendants' false plea of forgery, and the impact of delay in completing the sale on specific performance.
Point of law: Unless a statute specifically requires a plea to be in any particular form, it can be in any form. No specific phraseology or language is required to take such a plea. The language in S....
The court emphasized that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove readiness and willingness, which was lacking in the context of an unregistered agreement, leading to the dismissal of the....
An agreement of sale signed by vendor alone and delivered to purchaser, and accepted by the purchaser, has always been considered to be a valid contract. In the event of breach by the vendor, it can ....
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
