Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S.KINAGI
Vijayalaxmamma, W/O Late Puttaramaiah – Appellant
Versus
Thayamma, W/O Late Nagarajaiah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2014 passed in R.A.No.53/2013 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara, and the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2013 passed in O.S.No.133/2012 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants.
3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for a specific performance of the contract. It is contended that Defendant No. 1 has acquired the suit property in Panchayat parikath and accordingly he was in possession of the same. It is contended that, the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of Puttaramaiah who passed away on 23.02.2011. During his life time, he entered into a registered sale agreement dated 27.08.2009, wherein the defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule properties in favour of the late Puttaramaiah for a sum of Rs.2,05,000/-, and received an advance sale consi
The Court held that failure to issue legal notice prior to filing suit does not preclude the plaintiffs' entitlement to specific performance, especially given the absence of counters from defendants.
The defendants bear the burden to prove hardship in a specific performance contract; failure to do so invalidates dismissing the plaintiff's suit regardless of the trial court's findings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove the execution of the agreement of sale, payment of consideration, and continuous readiness and willingne....
Specific performance requires clean hands and substantial compliance; equitable relief is denied when parties engage in unfair practices.
The ruling emphasizes the necessity of fulfilling contractual obligations for specific performance and the implications of non-compliance by the seller.
The plaintiff must establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract to be entitled to specific performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
Specific performance – Relief of specific performance is equitable remedy – Plaintiff have to necessarily show their readiness and willingness in performing their part of contract from date of agreem....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a party seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract within the stipulated period, and a....
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
