IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S.KINAGI
N. Nagaraj S/o Late Shri Narayanappa – Appellant
Versus
P. Channappa Since Dead Rep. By His Legal Representatives Smt. Saraswatamma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
1. This RSA is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2015 passed in R.A. No.29 of 2014 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2013 passed in O.S. No.287 of 2013 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants.
3. Brief facts of the case leading rise to the filing of this appeal are follows.
4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for specific performance of a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a valid consideration and accordingly executed a sale agreement on 18.06.2001 and it was agreed that the sale was to be concluded within 4 months from the date of execution of the sale agreement and the plaintiff paid Rs. 51,000/- to defendant No.1 out of sale consideration of Rs. 1,92,700/-. Defendant No.1 after receiving the earnest money ex
S.P. ChengalVaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. and others
Seth Loonkaran Sethia and Others Vs. Ivan E. John and Others
Specific performance is a discretionary remedy, granted only to parties who approach the court with clean hands, and any material alteration in a contract undermines this principle.
The plaintiff's failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness, approach the court with unclean hands, and unilaterally alter the agreement led to the dismissal of the appeal.
A contract for the sale of property can only be enforced to the extent of a party's ownership rights, particularly where ancestral claims exist and co-ownership affects transactional authority.
(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....
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to complete contract obligations, failing which relief may be denied.
The amendment to the Specific Relief Act in 2018 makes specific performance non-discretionary; proven readiness leads to enforceable agreements.
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's affirmation of the specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 05-8-1995, and the rejection of the 4th defendant's claim as a b....
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 ....
An agreement of sale executed amidst disputed alterations can still support a recovery claim; however, without proper notice service and readiness for performance, specific performance cannot be gran....
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.