IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J
Hanumantappa, S/o. Chandrappa Gordanavar – Appellant
Versus
Jagadish, S/o. Hansraj Thakkar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.
The regular first appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2012 passed in O.S.No.90/2009 by the Court of First Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, thereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of contract is decreed in full directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs by receiving the balance sale consideration amount.
2. Rank of the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial court.
PLAINT:
3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are owners of suit schedule property and they had asked for financial assistance from the plaintiffs in the first week of March, 2007 and offered to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. The defendants agreed to sell suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.11,25,000/- and the plaintiffs have agreed to purchase the said property. Accordingly, agreement of sale dated 06.03.2007 was executed and the plaintiffs have paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- through pay order of State Bank of India, Hubli, for Rs.1,50,000/- and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid through cheque of B
JAYAKANTHAM AND OTHERS v. ABAYKUMAR
P.DAIVASIGAMANI v. S.SAMBANDAN
Parakunnan Veetill Joseph’s Son Mathew Vs. Nedumbara Kuruvila’s son
K. Narendra Vs. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd.
A.C. Arulappan Vs. Ahalya Naik
Lourdu Mari David v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy
Nirmala Anand Vs. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd
Ganesh Dassji v. Sita Ram Thapar
N.P.Thirugnanam v. R. Jagan Mohan Rao
Syed Dastagir v. T.R. Gopalakrishna setty
Sukhbir Singh v. Brij Pal Singh
A. Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed
C.S. Venkatesh v. A.S.C. Murthy
J.P.BUILDERS AND ANOTHER VS. A.RAMDAS RAO AND ANOTHER
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.
The grant of specific performance requires the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract and the court's discretion is governed by principles of equity and justi....
The subsequent rise in price and the defendant's resistance were not valid grounds to deny the relief of specific performance. The trial court rightly exercised its discretion in granting the relief ....
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.
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....
Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 mandates readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff seeking specific performance and the plaintiff has to prove the same.
Plaintiff's failure to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract negates entitlement to specific performance under Specific Relief Act.
Time is of the essence of a contract if the parties have agreed that it is or if the circumstances of the case show that it is.
A plaintiff in a specific performance suit must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations throughout, as mandated by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act....
The court emphasized that specific performance is discretionary and must consider the fairness of the transaction and the conduct of the parties involved.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.