Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. G. PANDIT, T.M.NADAF, JJ
V.K. Ramegowda, S/o Late Kalegowda Since Deceased By His Lr’s – Appellant
Versus
T Shankara, S/o Sri Chikkathimmegowda – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.G. PANDIT, J.
This first appeal by the plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code sof Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2010 in O.S.No.92/2008 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge at Ramanagara (for short, ‘Trial Court’), by which, the Trial Court directed refund of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a., refusing the relief of specific performance of contract against the respondents/defendants.
2. Parties would be referred to as they stand before the Trial Court. Appellant herein was the plaintiff and respondents herein were defendants before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the agricultural lands i.e., suit schedule properties and in the month of February 2006, defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff with a proposal to sell the suit schedule properties on his behalf as well as on behalf of defendant Nos.2 to 4. Accordingly, it is stated that the plaintiff and defendants entered into sale agreement dated 27.02.2006 for a sale consideration of Rs.36,00,000/-, out of which, plaintiff paid to defendants an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.597750/-
The plaintiff must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness, including financial capacity, to qualify for specific performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
In specific performance cases, the plaintiff must continuously demonstrate financial capacity and willingness to perform contractual obligations for relief, requiring substantial evidence rather than....
Plaintiffs must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, supported by evidence of financial capacity.
In a suit for specific performance, plaintiffs must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, supported by cogent evidence; mere assertions are insufficient.
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.
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations; failure to do so bars relief.
Plaintiff's failure to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract negates entitlement to specific performance under Specific Relief Act.
The plaintiff's failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract led to the dismissal of the appeal for specific performance.
The court affirmed that specific performance can be decreed if the plaintiff proves readiness and willingness, and the burden of proof shifts once a prima facie case is established.
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
