Back
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
Hulgappa, S/o. Bassappa Simblikar – Appellant
Versus
M. A. Gani, S/o. M. A. Wahid – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.) :
This Regular First Appeal is by defendants No.1 and 2, challenging the decree for specific performance of the contract dated 05.02.2010.
2. The Trial Court has held that the agreement to sell the suit property for Rs.64,75,000/- executed by defendants No.1 and 2 is proved. Defendants No.1 and 2 were directed to execute the registered sale deed by receiving the balance consideration of Rs.59,75,000/-, deducting Rs.5,00,000/- paid as advance consideration amount. The Trial Court has rejected the defendants’ defence of denial of execution of the agreement for sale.
3. The contention of defendants No.3 to 13, who are the family members of defendants No.1 and 2 that they too have right and interest in the suit schedule property, is not accepted by the Trial Court.
4. Defendants No.1 and 2, referring to Section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (‘the Act of 1961’ for short) had also taken a stand that plaintiffs No.1 to 3 not being the members of the ‘same family’ could not enter into an agreement to purchase agricultural land, which is the subject matter of the suit. The Trial Court has rejected the said contention as well.
5. The Trial Cour
The omission of Section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act retroactively validated the agreement for sale, but plaintiffs failed to establish readiness to perform the contract.
In discretionary specific performance cases, courts must balance hardship and enforceability; mere proof of agreement does not guarantee relief when it risks severe hardship for the defendant.
(1) Specific Performance is no longer a discretionary relief – Plaintiff cannot be punished by refusing relief of specific performance despite fact that execution of agreement to sell in his favour h....
Agreement to Sell – Suit for specific performance based on bald and vague pleadings must necessarily be rejected – There is distinction between readiness to perform contract and willingness to perfor....
The court emphasized that specific performance is discretionary and requires the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was not established in this cas....
To secure a decree for specific performance, plaintiffs must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness, supported by credible evidence, amidst a contract that specifies actionable terms.
The court established that a written agreement of sale is conclusive evidence of the parties' intentions, and the plaintiff must continuously demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their co....
The burden of proof lies on the party disputing the validity of a written contract, and the conduct of the parties and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness are essential for specific performance....
Specific performance requires all parties' consent in an agreement; plaintiffs must prove readiness and willingness to fulfill contractual obligations.
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
