Back
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Mandava Janardhana Rao (Died) – Appellant
Versus
K. Venkata Satyanarayanadied Per Lr 12 Ors Krishna Dist – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.)
The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 12-10-2006 in O.S.No.13 of 1997 passed by the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna District. The suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale.
2. The case of the plaintiffs as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows:
(a) It is pleaded that the 1st defendant entered into an agreement of sale with the 1st plaintiff on 02-11-1979 in respect of land of Ac.1-80 cents out of Ac.4-17 cents bearing R.S.No.473/2 of Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, agreeing to sell the same at Rs.89,000/- per acre. The 1st defendant received an advance of Rs.20,000/- from the 1st plaintiff on the date of agreement of sale. The 1st defendant also agreed to get necessary permission from Urban Land Ceiling Authority (ULCA, for short) for completion of the transaction. The 2nd defendant attested the agreement of sale, giving consent particularly for the term relating to removal of the shed and vacate the portion of the plaint schedule land. As per the terms and conditions of agreement of sale, the 1st defendant
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.
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.
Time is of the essence in contracts for sale of immovable property; failure to act within stipulated time undermines claims for specific performance.
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 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....
The court affirmed the validity of a sale agreement and ruled that the suit for specific performance was filed within the limitation period, emphasizing the significance of contractual time limits.
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 affirmed the plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance of the agreement of sale, emphasizing the defendant's failure to fulfill contractual obligations.
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
