Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.G.PANDIT, C.M.POONACHA
Raju, S/o. Late Nanjappa, (Dead), By His Lr’s- Jayamma, W/o. Madari Nanjappa – Appellant
Versus
Basavaraju, S/o. Basave Gowda – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This first appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2016 in O.S.No.3/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli (for short, ‘Trial Court’) by which, the appellants/plaintiffs’ suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.01.2011 is dismissed, holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs.5,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
2. Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, appeal is taken up for final disposal.
3. The parties to the appeal would be referred to as they stand before the Trial Court. Appellants herein were plaintiffs and respondents herein were defendants before the Trial Court.
4. Brief facts are that, the first defendant is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.2 is the wife of first defendant and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are children of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendants offered the suit schedule properties for sale and the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, plaintiffs and defendants entere
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.
Plaintiffs must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, supported by evidence of financial capacity.
In specific performance cases, the plaintiff must continuously demonstrate financial capacity and willingness to perform contractual obligations for relief, requiring substantial evidence rather than....
Plaintiff's failure to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract negates entitlement to specific performance under Specific Relief Act.
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations; failure to do so bars relief.
Plaintiffs must provide clear evidence of readiness and willingness backed by fund availability to claim specific performance of a contract, as mere statements are insufficient.
Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract for specific performance; mere assertion is insufficient.
Specific performance requires proof of continuous readiness and willingness by the plaintiff, and failure to demonstrate this justifies denial of relief.
The Plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as well as the Defendant's failure to prove that the sale agreement was fabricated, were crucial in the court's decision to confirm ....
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
