Back
V. R. K. KRUPA SAGAR
Varra Trimurthulu – Appellant
Versus
Buddaraju Venkata Rama Krishna Satya Surya Subba Raju – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.
1. This is defendant's appeal. The appellant owns Ac.10.00 cents of land. He and the respondent have been friends since the time of their childhood. The respondent owns Ac.30.00 cents of land. He also does business in prawn and fish feeds. The appellant has been a customer for purchase of the said feed for the use of the same in his own fish tanks. Controversy between them arose with reference to an agreement for sale said to have been executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent concerning the plaint schedule mentioned immovable properties. Ex.A.2 is the registered sale deed dated 22.03.1995 under which the appellant had come to own the plaint schedule properties. It is stated that the appellant executed Ex.A.1-registered agreement for sale dated 08.08.2002 in favour of respondent. In the context of the above facts, the respondent herein filed O.S. No.56 of 2004 before learned III Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram praying for specific performance of the said agreement for sale and for delivery of possession of the property and in the alternative, he prayed for refund of advance sale consideration he had paid along wi
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.
The appellate court ruled that the agreement for sale was not proved and lacked consideration, leading to the dismissal of the specific performance suit.
An unregistered agreement for sale can be enforced for specific performance, and a rise in property prices alone does not justify denying such relief if the purchaser is ready and willing to perform.
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 amendment to the Specific Relief Act in 2018 makes specific performance non-discretionary; proven readiness leads to enforceable agreements.
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 upheld that the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance due to vague property description and explicit stipulations regardin....
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
