IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
S. Krishna Reddy – Appellant
Versus
K Lokanadha Reddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.
This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 30.11.2012, in A.S.No.98 of 2006, on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 11.08.2006, in O.S.No.89 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati.
2. Originally, the suit in O.S.No.89 of 2001 was filed by the plaintiff for seeking the relief to direct the defendant No.1 to execute and register the necessary agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit for specific performance of agreement and granted refund of advance amount of Rs.20,000/- with proportionate costs against the defendant No.1 with subsequent interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.89 of 2001, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed an appeal vide A.S.No.98 of 2006, on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The learned first appellate Judge allowed the appeal with costs by
An agreement to enter into an agreement is unenforceable; specific performance requires a concluded contractual agreement.
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 that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
The plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, which was not established in this case.
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.
Under section 100 CPC, after the 1976 amendment, it is essential for the High Court to formulate a substantial question of law and it is not permissible to reverse the judgment of the first appellate....
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.
The plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract precludes specific performance, but the first defendant must return the advance amount with interest.
Point of law: When cancellation may be ordered - (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding ma....
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.