Back
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
Mogadati Ramatulasamma – Appellant
Versus
Nandru Nagendramma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Proceedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), is filed by the Appellant/Defendant challenging the decree and judgment dated 27.10.2016 in O.S.No.19 of 2014 passed by the learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Nandigama, Krishna District (for short, ‘the trial Court’).
2. Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2014 for Specific Performance of sale agreement dated 07.02.2014 seekinng to direct the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.11,25,000/- and execute a regular Registereed sale deed in respect of plaint scheduule property in favour of the Plaintiff at his costs or in alternative to pass a deccree for the amount of Rs.3,75,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of transaction till the date of realization. The Appellant herein is the defendant in the suit.
3. Referring to the parties as arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate 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 court affirmed that specific performance can be decreed if the plaintiff proves readiness and willingness, and the burden of proof shifts once a prima facie case is established.
The Plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, including financial capacity, while the burden of proof shifts to the Defendant to disprove the agre....
The Plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as well as the Defendant's failure to prove that the sale agreement was fabricated, were crucial in the court's decision to confirm ....
The subsequent rise in price and the defendant's resistance were not valid grounds to deny the relief of specific performance. The trial court rightly exercised its discretion in granting the relief ....
Plaintiff's failure to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract negates entitlement to specific performance under Specific Relief Act.
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations; failure to do so bars relief.
The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, and the defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff lacked the financial capacity to pay the balance sale considerati....
In specific performance cases, the plaintiff must continuously demonstrate financial capacity and willingness to perform contractual obligations for relief, requiring substantial evidence rather than....
![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....
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
