Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. Mallikarjuna Rao
Mogadati Ramatulasamma – Appellant
Versus
Nandru Nagendramma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.
1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 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 seeking to direct the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.11,25,000/- and execute a regular Registered sale deed in respect of plaint schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff at his costs or in alternative to pass a decree 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:
(a) The Defendant is
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 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'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 ....
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations; failure to do so bars relief.
Plaintiff's failure to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract negates entitlement to specific performance under Specific Relief Act.
In specific performance cases, the plaintiff must continuously demonstrate financial capacity and willingness to perform contractual obligations for relief, requiring substantial evidence rather than....
Agreement to Sell – In a suit for specific performance of agreement, it is for Plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the agreement – Where a certain amount....
The appellate court emphasized that specific performance requires proof of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was not adequately addressed by the trial Court.
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
