Back
V. R. K. KRUPA SAGAR
Puli Varalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Puli Govinda Reddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.
1. Defendant in O.S.No.226 of 2008 preferred this appeal under section 96 CPC impugning the judgment dated 02.07.2014 of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. O.S.No.226 of 2008 is a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale with an alternative relief of refund of advance sale consideration along with interest and for costs and such other reliefs.
2. The appellant has been owning 2,222 square yards of vacant site in Chinagantyada Village. Her husband is Sri P. Satyanarayana Reddy. The respondent/ plaintiff Sri P. Govinda Reddy is the younger brother to Sri P. Satyanarayana Reddy and thus is brother-in-law for the appellant/ defendant. The controversy revolves around 1,111 Square Yards of the vacant site along with an office room situated therein alleging that his sister-in-law executed an agreement for sale dated 16.10.2003 in his favour and thereafter failed to execute registered sale deed, the respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit. Defendant filed a written statement and resisted the claim raising various contentions. Learned trial court settled the following issues for trial
The appellate court ruled that the agreement for sale was not proved and lacked consideration, leading to the dismissal of the specific performance suit.
The court affirmed that an agreement for sale is valid and enforceable when supported by consideration, rejecting claims of it being merely a security for a loan.
Comparison of signatures by Court is always a hazardous course. Court should not as a matter of course loosely resort to application of Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act.
The plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a binding contract or prove payment of earnest money for specific performance, leading to the dismissal of his claims.
The plaintiff's failure to prove willingness to perform the contract led to the grant of the alternate relief of refund of the advance money.
The court ruled that mere proof of signature does not establish the execution of a sale agreement if fabrication is probable, thus denying specific performance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, as well as the fulfillment of the terms of the agreement for sa....
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
Point of law: Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale Specific Performance - If any transfer subsequent to sale agreement is not for consideration and not done in good faith, then, there is no neces....
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
