Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD
Mamta Yadav, W/o. Late Rakesh Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Akmal Rizvi, S/o. Hazi Mohammad Alanoor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the factual background regarding the lawsuit. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellants regarding errors. (Para 3) |
| 3. citations of precedential cases supporting the appellants' claims. (Para 4) |
| 4. respondents' contentions against the appellants' claims. (Para 5) |
| 5. further legal authorities cited by the respondents. (Para 6) |
| 6. court's attention on evidence presented. (Para 7) |
| 7. discussion on the need for proper issues regarding readiness and willingness. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 8. explanation of legal standards relevant to specific performance. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 9. examination of witnesses and their testimonies about rakesh yadav's mental condition. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 10. the court's rationale surrounding the admissibility of agreement to sell. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 11. conclusion on case remand and judicial directions. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
Order :
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
1. The appellants are gravely aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Suit No. 08- A/2014, titled Mohammad Akmal Rizvi versus Mamta Yadav and Others, whereby the learned Trial Court
The court emphasized the necessity for continuous proof of a party's readiness and willingness to perform contract obligations and that unregistered agreements impacting possession must be duly stamp....
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was not established in this case.
The court upheld that an agreement to sell not duly stamped is inadmissible in evidence, and emphasized the necessity of proving continuous readiness and willingness for granting specific performance....
A plaintiff in a specific performance suit must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations throughout, as mandated by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act....
Plaintiff's failure to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract negates entitlement to specific performance under Specific Relief Act.
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.
Continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract is essential for obtaining specific performance; mere execution of an agreement and issuance of notices do not suffice.
To secure a decree for specific performance, plaintiffs must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness, supported by credible evidence, amidst a contract that specifies actionable terms.
For specific performance, a plaintiff must consistently prove readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations. Failure to do so, along with unexplained delays, can result in denial....
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
