Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Tata Shyam Babu, S/o. Satayanarayana – Appellant
Versus
Maram Venkateswarlu, S/o. Venkata Reddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 08.04.2024 in A.S.No.100 of 2020 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 18.08.2020 in O.S.No.715 of 2014 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.715 of 2014 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.715 of 2014 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, with a prayer for specific performance of agreement of sale directing the defendant to execute a sale deed with respect to the schedule property by receiving balance sale consideration after deducting advance amount received by him and if the defendant failed to do so, the Court may be pleased to execute the same on behalf of the defendant or grant the alternative relief of return of advance amount of Rs.50,000/- together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the agreement till the date of realization and for c
A second appeal under Section 100 of CPC must arise from a substantial question of law; otherwise, it may be dismissed.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the establishment of a substantial question of law, which was not present in this case.
The judgment establishes that specific performance can be granted when the plaintiff proves the execution of the contract and demonstrates readiness and willingness to perform, despite the defendant'....
The ruling emphasizes the necessity of fulfilling contractual obligations for specific performance and the implications of non-compliance by the seller.
The court affirmed that specific performance can be granted when the execution of the sale agreement is proven and the plaintiff demonstrates readiness and willingness to perform their contractual ob....
Time is of the essence in contracts, and failure to perform within the agreed timeline results in the claim being barred by limitation under the Specific Relief Act.
The court affirmed that the burden of proving forgery lies with the party alleging it and upheld the validity of the sale agreement, reinforcing principles of specific performance in contract law.
Proof of continuous readiness and willingness, and genuineness of the sale agreement are crucial for a claim of specific performance.
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
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
