IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Parasa Bhaskar Rao, (DIED) – Appellant
Versus
Dokku Govindarajulu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 07.01.2022in A.S.No.165 of 2018, on the file of the IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 18.07.2018in O.S.No.205 of 2007, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam (“Trial Court” for short).
2. The 2ndappellantherein is the2nd plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein are the defendants in O.S.No.205 of 2007.
During the pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff died and his legal representative was brought on record as 2nd plaintiff. During the pendency of the first appeal, the 1st respondent died and his legal representative brought on record as 8th respondent.
3.The deceased sole plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.205 of 2007 with a prayer for specific permanence of suit contract directing the defendants to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of 2nd plaintiff and for alternative prayer if any reason, the Court is not inclined to grant a decree for spec
Boodireddy Chandraiah v. Arigela Laxmi
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.
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 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.
Court confirmed that a suit for specific performance filed within three years from the notice of refusal is not time-barred under Limitation Act provisions, emphasizing the validity of oral agreement....
The plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, which was not established in this case.
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 ruling emphasizes the necessity of fulfilling contractual obligations for specific performance and the implications of non-compliance by the seller.
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.
A second appeal under Section 100 of CPC must arise from a substantial question of law; otherwise, it may be dismissed.
The plea of bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC prohibits a second suit for specific performance if based on the same cause of action previously omitted, and the suit is also barred by limitation under Art....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.