Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S.KINAGI
Karnataka Police Employees Housing Building Co-Operative Society Ltd., Represented By Its President Sri. Nanjunde Gowda – Appellant
Versus
Puttalingaiah, S/o., Late Gangaiahna Lingaiah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.)
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2016 passed in R.A.No.181/2013 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Mysuru.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants.
3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows :
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for the specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.84/1, measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, situated at Lalitadripura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. It is contended that defendants No.1 to 3 entered into a sale agreement dated 12.01.2002 with the plaintiff society for alienating the suit schedule property for the sale consideration of Rs.2,15,000/- per acre. At the time of the execution of a sale agreement, defendants No.1 to 3 received a sum of Rs.15,000/- as an advance sale consideration amount and pleaded that they require one year time to complete the sale transaction, as there are valuable Mang
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate the existence of a valid contract and show readiness to perform, with the burden of proof resting on them; failure to do so results in dismis....
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations, and the agreement must be validly executed by all necessary pa....
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to complete contract obligations, failing which relief may be denied.
A sale agreement executed by only one co-owner is defective and cannot support a claim for specific performance, which necessitates establishing readiness and willingness separately.
The ruling emphasizes the necessity of fulfilling contractual obligations for specific performance and the implications of non-compliance by the seller.
In specific performance cases, mutual obligations must be met; time is not of essence if one party defaults, necessitating performance from both sides.
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
