Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, K.MANMADHA RAO
Malliga Since Deceased, Represented By Lr's : Sri. Dhanpal, (S/o. Late N. Subramanya) – Appellant
Versus
Althaf, S/o. Mehaboob Mia – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(ANU SIVARAMAN, J.)
This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree passed in Com.O.S.No.4029/2017 dated 22.05.2023 passed by the LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-88) ('Commercial Court' for short).
2. We have heard Shri. Anil Shekar K.S, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri. Shivayogi B. Hallur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The contentions of the appellants are as follows :-
The defendant in a suit for specific performance of a Joint Development Agreement ('JDA' for short) dated 08.05.2013 is the appellant herein. The appellant was the owner in possession of the property having a total extent of 30 feet x 70 feet situated on 3rd Cross, Muneshwara Block, Bengaluru. The property was mortgaged to the Padmashree Credit Co-operative Society. The JDA was entered into by which the respondent agreed to construct a residential apartment on ground and three floors consisting of eight flats in the portion of the property measuring 30 feet x 50 feet as consideration, the respondent agreed to pay Rs.1,42,00,000/- to the appellant in consideration of the permission to put up the apartment i
A Joint Development Agreement is enforceable where a party can prove execution and compliance, with discrepancies in signatures deemed insufficient to challenge the agreement's validity.
Specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property can be granted even if the final layout has not been sanctioned, provided the plaintiff has proven the existence of the agreement....
Point of law: specific performance of oral Agreement of sale – Not proved - In a case of specific performance of contract, a greater degree of certainty is required and it demands a clear, definite a....
Specific performance requires clear proof of ownership and agreement validity, especially in joint property contexts.
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove both a valid agreement and continuous willingness to perform; failure to provide credible evidence results in dismissal.
Specific performance requires all parties' consent in an agreement; plaintiffs must prove readiness and willingness to fulfill contractual obligations.
In specific performance actions, plaintiffs must demonstrate readiness and willingness to fulfill contractual obligations; failing this, the claim may be dismissed.
The court affirmed that temporary injunctions require a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and urgency; failure to demonstrate these results in dismissal.
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
