Back
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
S. Rahmath Bi – Appellant
Versus
Unnam Pullamma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.
1. 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 19.12.2001, in O.S. No. 14 of 1998 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit.
2. The Plaintiffs filed the above said suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 29.03.1994 and also for grant of compensation for Ac.0.50 cents of land which is part of the suit schedule land.
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. 14 of 1998, are as under:
The court ruled that time is not an essence of contract in specific performance cases, and the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance despite the trial court's dismissal.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance of the agreement of sale despite the defendant's claims, as the suit was filed within the limitation period and time was not ....
The plaintiff's failure to file the suit within the limitation period and to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract resulted in dismissal of the specific performance claim.
Time is of the essence in contracts for sale of immovable property; failure to act within stipulated time undermines claims for specific performance.
Specific performance of a contract is a discretionary remedy that requires the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform their obligations within the stipulated time.
A sale agreement signed solely by the vendor is enforceable, and no fixed date of performance in an agreement allows suit filing within three years of notice of refusal.
The court emphasized that specific performance is discretionary and requires the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was not established in this cas....
![Dudala Sarojinamma [died] VS Dudala Rama Prasad](https://cdn.supremetoday.ai/static/img/news-place-holder.png)
(1) Specific performance of agreement of sale –Alternative plea of refund of earnest amount and damage could not be bar to claiming decree for specific Performance of contract.(2) Specific performanc....
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to complete contract obligations, failing which relief may be denied.
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
