Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
Kakarla Venkataratnam (Died) and Others – Appellants
Versus
Guntur Venkata Narasaiah Died and Others – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 79 of 2010
Decided On : 19-10-2024
Specific Performance - Contract Law - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 10, 20 - The court emphasized the necessity for the plaintiff to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the discretionary nature of specific performance, ultimately ruling against the plaintiffs due to inordinate delay and lack of evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought specific performance of a 1985 sale agreement for property, claiming possession was transferred. The defendants contended they purchased the property in 2000 and had maintained possession since, leading to a dispute over ownership and the validity of the sale agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claims of possession and readiness to perform the contract, and the delay of nearly 20 years in filing the suit undermined their case for specific performance.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of the sale agreement and possession of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiffs to establish their claims, and the significant delay in seeking specific performance, coupled with lack of evidence, precluded them from relief.
Result: The Second Appeal is allowed, and the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court is set aside, restoring the trial court's decree.
JUDGMENT :
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/4th Respondent/4th Defendant against the Decree and Judgment dated 15.12.2009 in A.S. No. 310 of 2008 on the file of District Judge, Guntur (for short the 1st Appellate Court’) reversing the decree and Judgment dated 22.09.2008 in O.S. No. 282 of 2005 on the file of V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur (for short ‘the trial Court’).
2. The Respondents 1 to 4/Appellants are the Plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S. No. 282 of 2005 seeking specific performance of a contract of sale dated 05.05.1985 directing all the Defendants to execute a sale deed regarding schedule property and deliver possession of the same to the Plaintiff; in case of default, the Court may please to execute a regular sale deed on their behalf and also for compensation of Rs.62,000/-. The Respondents 5 to 7/Respondents 1 to 3 are the Defendants 1 to 3 in the said suit.
3. Referring to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit in O.S. No. 282 of 2005 is expedient to mitigate any potential confusion and better comprehend the case.
4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:
The suit schedule property was initially owned by Y. Punnarao. The 1st Defendant is his spouse, while Defendants 2 and 3 are his son and daughter, respectively. The 1st Plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from the 1st Defendant’s husband in 05.05.1985 under a contract of sale for Rs.40,000/- with possession duly transferred and an assurance from Y. Punnarao to execute a registered sale deed at the Plaintiff’s request. The 4th Defendant's father, K. Venkata Subbaiah, is the 1st Plaintiff’s sister's son. The 1st Plaintiff married Venkata Subbaiah's elder sister. Due to their close relationship, the 1st Plaintiff entrusted the schedule property to the 4th Defendant's father, who resided in Guntur. The 1st Plaintiff believed his brother-in-law was managing the schedule property, which was vacant. Despite the 1st Plaintiff's readiness to obtain the registered sale deed, the Defendants postponed the process. The 1st Plaintiff, unaware of malfeasance, remained patient, believing he only needed the sale deed to fulfil his contractual obligations. Recently, the 1st Plaintiff received a Court notice regarding a suit filed by K. Venkataratnam, claiming title to the property. Upon enquiry, the 1st Plaintiff came to know that Y. Punnarao had died nearly six years prior, a fact concealed by the 4th Defendant’s father. It appears that the 4th Defendant and his father colluded to execute a fraudulent sale deed for Rs.1,98,000/- on 10.01.2000 to undermine the 1st Plaintiff’s rights.
Consequently, the 1st Plaintiff has initiated the present suit. During the pendency of the suit, 1st Plaintiff passed away on 08.06.2007. Following his demise, Plaintiffs 2 to 4, as his legal heirs, are entitled to pursue the suit and seek a registered sale deed for the suit schedule property.
5. Defendant No. 4 has filed a written statement, refuting the plaint averments that the 1st Plaintiff validly purchased the suit schedule property from late Y. Punnarao on 05.05.1985 for Rs.40,000/- and took possession thereof. 4th Defendant contends that 1st Plaintiff did not entrust the property to his father and refutes any claims regarding the receipt of full sale consideration or promises made by Y. Punnarao. The 4th Defendant asserts that he purchased the schedule property from Defendants 1 and 3 on 10.01.2000, for Rs.1,98,000/- having initially paid Rs.40,000/- as an advance. Following Y. Punnarao’s demise, his wife and daughter received the balance of sale consideration. They executed a sale deed in favour of him on 10.01.2000 vide document no. 31/2000 and delivered possession of the schedule property. Thus, the 4th Defendant claims absolute ownership and states that he has leased the suit schedule property to Sri Sai Bar an
AI
The remedy of specific performance is discretionary and requires the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was not established in this case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's affirmation of the specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 05-8-1995, and the rejection of the 4th defendant's claim as a b....
Under section 100 CPC, after the 1976 amendment, it is essential for the High Court to formulate a substantial question of law and it is not permissible to reverse the judgment of the first appellate....
Specific performance requires timely action and demonstration of readiness and willingness, which was not proven here.
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
The court established that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract must be assessed in light of the entire context, including possession ....
The court affirmed that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations, which was established in this case despite claims....
The court's decision was influenced by the lack of good faith, absence of notice, and delay in filing the suit, which disentitled the plaintiff to specific performance.
(1) Second Appeal – Jurisdiction of High Court in second appeal under Section 100 of CPC is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law.(2) Written Statement – Mere failure or....
The court ruled that a plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to execute a sale agreement, and failure to do so, along with undue hardship to defendants, can preclude specific performance.
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
