Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V. SRISHANANDA
P Thayanna Reddy, S/o C.Pilla Reddy – Appellant
Versus
M Erannaswamy, S/o Munishamappa Ajjappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V SRISHANANDA, J.
Plaintiff in O.S.No.1777/2006 is the appellant challenging the decreeing of the suit in part, whereby suit for specific performance is dismissed and plaintiff was entitled to recover sum of Rs.95,000/- which was paid as part consideration with interest at 18% per annum from the date of agreement till its actual realisation.
2. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant for the sake of convenience as per their original rankings before the trial Court.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
4. Plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell dated 14.02.1991 with defendant in respect of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.50/4 to an extent of four acres of Maralakunte village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. (more fully described in the schedule to the plaint, which is extracted hereunder and hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’).
All that part and parcel of the property bearing Survey No.50/4 to an extent of 4 Acres (Akara 12.25) situate at Maralakunte Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, and bounded on:
| Direction | Description |
|---|---|
| East by | Property of Chattappa, Erappa |
| West by | Road from Maral |
The court reinforced that specific performance can be granted if the plaintiff proves readiness to perform, regardless of price escalation, citing a precedent that supports enforcing agreements despi....
Mere escalation of price does not constitute hardship to the vendor, and the conduct of the parties and the terms of the agreement are crucial in determining entitlement to specific performance.
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 Court found that the agreement of sale dated 11.10.2005 is true, valid and binding on the appellant and the respondent is entitled for the relief of specific performance. The Court also found tha....
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to complete contract obligations, failing which relief may be denied.
Parties must continuously demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract to successfully claim specific performance; defendants' denial of contract validity shifts the burden of proof on....
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....
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.
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
