Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 1228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.
Narasamma —Appellant
Vs.
Sri. Subbarao Chavan, Smt. G.K. Sugunamma and Sri. Mariswamy —Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 135 of 2003
Decided on : 11-06-2013
Advocate Appeared:
Narendra, M.V. Chandrashekhara Reddy, for the Appellant
Aravinda Babu, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract in seeking specific performance relief.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Sale Agreement - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - S. 16, S. 20 - The court discussed the essential terms of the contract, readiness and willingness to perform, and the discretion of the court in granting specific performance. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, leading to the rejection of the specific performance relief. The court also modified the impugned decree based on the Memo filed by the respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant, seeking specific performance of the contract. The trial court decreed the suit in part, rejecting the specific performance relief but awarding the refund of the advance amount with damages and interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff did not prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, leading to the rejection of the specific performance relief. The court also modified the impugned decree based on the Memo filed by the respondents.
Issues: The issues included the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, rejection of specific performance relief, and the deposit of the decreed amount by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract justified the rejection of the specific performance relief. The court also modified the impugned decree based on the Memo filed by the respondents.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, subject to the modification of the impugned decree based on the Memo filed by the respondents, and there were no orders as to costs.
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—The respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement of sale dated 17.02.1983 agreeing to sell an item of his property to mother of the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- and received Rs. 5,000/- as an advance. The agreement required the sale to be completed within a period of six months by paying full balance sale consideration amount, with a clear stipulation that the time shall be the essence of the contract and it shall not be open to either of the parties to plead for any extension of time. Stating that Rs. 20,000/- was paid as further advance on 16.03.1983 and a further sum of Rs. 60,000/- was paid on 20.09.1983 and alleging that the 1st defendant/vendor did not perform his part of the contract by delivering title deeds and executing required sale deed, despite issuance of two legal notices, a suit was filed on 22.06.1984, to pass a decree against a sole defendant, to specifically perform the agreement dated 17.02.1983 to do all acts necessary to execute and register the instrument of transfer in respect of the plaint schedule property and put the plaintiff in actual possession of the same and for grant of consequential reliefs. The 1st respondent/1st defendant contested the suit by filing written statement on 27.08.1984. He admitted the agreement of sale dated 17.02.1983 and receipt for cash of Rs. 5,000/- as advance thereunder. It was stated that he had nothing to do with the plaintiff, whom he had not seen. It was further stated that the person who actually dealt with him is M.S. Krishnamurthy, a Revenue Inspector attached to Bangalore South Taluk Office, who had told that he is purchasing the suit property in the name of his mother, Smt. Narasamma, merely as a benamidar or name-lender and that the advance amount was paid by M.S. Krishnamurthy only. The payment of further advance amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 16.03.1983 and Rs. 60,000/- on 20.09.1983 were denied. It was alleged that the balance purchase price was not paid promptly and within the specific period of six months as stipulated in the agreement to sell dated 17.02.1983 and sale transaction was not duly completed in the manner stated in the agreement and therefore, it was stated that the claim of the plaintiff that she was ready and willing to perform her part of contract was false. It was stated that the suit property was sold to a honest and deserving purchaser.
2. Defendant No. 1 sold his two items of properties, including the suit property, under two separate sale deeds dated 15.06.1984 and 27.06.1984, in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 2 respectively. The defendant Nos. 3 and 2, who were subsequently impleaded in the suit, filed separate written statements dated 19.09.1987 and 19.10.1987 and contested the suit.
3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Judge raised the following issues:
1) Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant entered into an agreement on 17-2-83 in his favour by receiving an advance of Rs. 5000/- as contended?
2) Whether defendant proves the plaintiff is a benamidar for her son Sri. Krishnamurthy?
3) Whether plaintiff proves that he had paid further sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 16-3-83 and Rs. 60,000/-on 20.9.83 in part performance of the contract?
4) Whether defendant proves that in the receipts dt. 16-3-83 and 20-9-83 are false and got up one?
5) Whether defendant proves that the time was insist of the contract and then plaintiff does not perform his part of contract?
6) Whether plaintiff proves that he was ready and willing to perform her part of contract?
7) Is plaintiff entitled for relief of specific performance?
8) Whether defendant proves that no cause of action arose?
9) Is defendant entitled for compensatory costs as contended?
10) To what relief/reliefs parties are entitled?
11) What order and decree?
12) Does the plaintiff proves that sale deed by D1, D2 and D3 in respect of property Nos. 103 and 104 on 15-6-84 and 27-6-84 suit property showing different boundaries are not binding on her
