IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G.UMA
K.K. Karthikeyan S/o Kunjivelum – Appellant
Versus
Jayadharmarajan W/o Shri K.V. Dharmarajan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The revision petitioners being the respondents in HRC No.473/2006 on the file of the learned Chief Judge of Small Causes at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) have filed HRRP No.226/2008 seeking to set aside the judgment and order dated 24.07.2008, passed by the Trial Court allowing the petition directing the respondents to vacate and put the petitioner in vacant possession of the petition schedule premises within two months from the date of order.
2. The appellant being the defendant in OS.No.6580/2006 on the file of the learned 17th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court (CCH-16) Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') has preferred RFA No.1530/2011, impugning the judgment dated 05.08.2011 decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract directing the defendant to vacate the schedule premises, execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance consideration amount.
3. The schedule appended to plaint describes the property as the piece and parcel of the property bearing site No.157 and house list No.338/295 of Saneguruvanalli village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengal
The court ruled that a buyer's readiness to complete a property sale is essential; a price increase over time can invalidate specific performance claims if the buyer cannot prove their willingness.
The plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract within the stipulated time precluded him from obtaining the relief of specific performance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's claim for specific performance was not barred by limitation, and the court exercised its discretion to decree the suit for spe....
Time is generally not considered essence in immovable property contracts; refusal to perform requires consideration of readiness alongside equitable claims for refund.
The court affirmed the plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance of the agreement of sale, emphasizing the defendant's failure to fulfill contractual obligations.
The involvement of legal processes in tenant eviction made it unfair to blame the parties for failing to fulfill their obligations within the agreed time frame.
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to complete contract obligations, failing which relief may be denied.
(1) Agreement to sell – Specific performance will not be ordered if contract itself suffers from some defect which makes contract invalid or unenforceable – Discretion of court will not be there even....
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
Plaintiffs must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, supported by evidence of financial capacity.
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.