Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Shankar Lal Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Nirupama Das – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts regarding the contract. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellant. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. findings of trial and first appellate courts. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. legal standards regarding specific performance. (Para 18 , 26) |
| 5. court's final order to execute the sale deed. (Para 41) |
JUDGMENT :
Ashok Kumar Pandey, J.
Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant. No one appears from the side of the defendant/respondent to argue this case.
2. Plaintiff/appellant has filed this appeal for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1998 and 01.12.1998 respectively (hereinafter to be referred as the impugned judgment and decree) passed by the District Judge, Katihar in Title Appeal No. 08 of 1996 wherein and whereunder the learned first appellate court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.02.1996 and 29.02.1996 respectively passed by Sub-Judge 1st, Katihar in Title Suit No. 25 of 1989.
Submission on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate court is against the materials on the record of the case.Learned first appellate court has erred
The appellate court must respect trial court findings unless clear errors exist, particularly regarding the existence and terms of contractual agreements and the parties' readiness to perform.
Specific performance can be granted when the buyer has made substantial payments and the seller's refusal to execute the sale deed is unjustified, even if specific issues on readiness and willingness....
The burden of proof lies on the party disputing the validity of a written contract, and the conduct of the parties and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness are essential for specific performance....
Party praying for specific performance of a contract has to prove on record availability of balance sale consideration on date when it was required to be paid.
The appellate court emphasized that specific performance requires proof of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was not adequately addressed by the trial Court.
The continuous readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance.
The court established that a plaintiff's capacity to pay for specific performance need not involve carrying cash; readiness and willingness can be demonstrated through evidence of financial capabilit....
Point of law: plaintiff cannot take a stand that merely for want of objection in the written statement which is hardly any effect or consequence, without the plaintiff prove his case by letting evide....
A sale agreement signed by one party is valid if it evidences mutual consent, and readiness and willingness do not require specific phrasing in the plaint.
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
