Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
E.S.INDIRESH
H.M. Krishnamurthy, S/o Muniyappa Reddy – Appellant
Versus
V. Shanthi, W/o Sri. Velyutham – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
E.S.INDIRESH, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2017 passed in RA.No.237/2013 on the file of the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2013 passed in O.S.No.232/2005 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
-
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the trial Court.
3. The plaint averments are that, the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property and as such, entered into an Agreement of Sale on 11.08.2003, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for total consideration of Rs.96,000/-. Pursuant to the same, plaintiff has paid advance amount of Rs.50,000/- and thereafter, paid Rs.20,000/- on 22.10.2003 by way of cash and Rs.10,000/- through cheque on 23.10.2003. It is the case of the plaintiff that, plaintiff has paid Rs.80,000/- towards sale consideration to the defendant and agreeing to pay the balance consider
Specific performance of contract is enforceable when a valid agreement exists, evidenced by payment and parties' acknowledgment, despite claims of it being merely a power of attorney.
A plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations for a decree of specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, which both lower courts adequately confir....
To establish a claim for specific performance, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the authenticity of the contract, which was found lacking in this case.
Merely admitting to a signature on a sale agreement does not establish execution; the burden of proof lies with the propounder of the document to confirm its genuineness.
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove both a valid agreement and continuous willingness to perform; failure to provide credible evidence results in dismissal.
Presumption of refund arises when original sale documents are returned; burden lies on plaintiff to prove consideration not refunded and possession for specific performance under unregistered sale ag....
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
Under the Specific Relief Act, a buyer must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract, and failure to issue a prior demand notice renders a suit for specific performance unmaintaina....
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
