Back
R. G. AVACHAT, NEERAJ P. DHOTE
Gulam Ali S/o Ismail Khan – Appellant
Versus
Shaikh Kalimulla S/o Sk. Barkatulla – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
This is the First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) against the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, (S.D.), Aurangabad dismissing the Spl. Civil Suit No.390/2011 instituted for Specific Performance of Contract. The operative Order of the impugned Judgment reads as under :
1. The prayer for specific performance of the contract is hereby rejected.
2. The prayer to refund earnest amount is hereby rejected.
3. The prayer for compensation is also hereby rejected.
4. Decree be drawn up accordingly.”
2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present Appeal are as follows:
2.1. The Appellants are the Legal Representatives of the original Plaintiff who died during the pendency of the Appeal. The original Plaintiff went before the learned Civil Court with the Plaint that he entered into an Agreement to Sell (Exh.65) with the Defendants on 20.02.2008 in respect of landed property admeasuring 70,000 Sq. Feet, bearing CTS No.20719, out of Survey No.2, situated at Kokanwadi, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Suit Propert
Specific performance requires continuous proof of readiness and willingness, which was found lacking in this case, leading to a dismissal of the claim.
Continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent for obtaining relief of grant of specific performance, as mandated by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief A....
(1) Though, principle that time is not essence of contract in a suit for specific performance of immovable property deserves its consideration in appropriate cases, said principle cannot be applied a....
The plaintiff's failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract led to the dismissal of the appeal for specific performance.
Time is of the essence in contracts for sale of immovable property; failure to act within stipulated time undermines claims for specific performance.
The court affirmed that time is the essence of a contract for the sale of immovable property, requiring the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform, which he failed to do.
The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, and the defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff lacked the financial capacity to pay the balance sale considerati....
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
