IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
A. Meenakshi Naidu – Appellant
Versus
A Chakravathi, S/o. A. Masthanappa – Respondent
Judgment:
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
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 26.09.2022 in A.S.No.39 of 2018, on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu at Gooty (“First Appellate Court” for short), confirming the Judgment and decree, dated 27.03.2018 in O.S.No.74 of 2011, on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal (“Trial Court” for short).
2. The appellants herein are the defendants and respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.74 of 2011.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.74 of 2011 with a prayer for specific performance of agreement of sale directing the defendants to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.
4. The trial Court decreed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendants in the above said suit filed A.S.No.39 of 2018 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment pa
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....
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 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 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 plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, which was not established in this case.
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
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.
An agreement to enter into an agreement is unenforceable; specific performance requires a concluded contractual agreement.
The suit was filed after a delay of 28 years and no genuine cause of action was found from the plaint, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
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.