ROBIN PHUKAN
BASANTA DAS S/O LATE JAGANATH DAS – Appellant
Versus
GIRISH CH. DAS S/O LATE HARICHARAN DAS – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This second appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC, is directed against the judgment dated 26.04.2010 and decree dated 29.04.2010, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Barpeta, in Title Appeal No. 13/2006.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment, dated 26.04.2010, and decree dated 29.04.2010, the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Barpeta had allowed the appeal preferred by the defendant/respondent and reversed the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta, in Title Suit No. 26/2004.
4. The background facts, leading to filing of this appeal, are briefly stated as under:
A. Abdul Rashid Khan (Dead) and Ors. vs. P.A.K.A. Shahul Hamid and Ors. (2000) 10 SCC 636
Desh Raj and Ors. vs. Rohtash Singh
Gomathinayagam Pillai and Ors. vs. Palaniswami Nadar
Hari Steel & General Industries Ltd. v. Daljit Singh
Hind Construction v. State of Maharashtra
His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji vs. Sita Ram Thapar
McDermott International Inc. vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 181
Swarnam Ramachandran and Anr. vs. Aravacode Chakungal Jayapalan
Welspun Speciality Solutions Limited vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
In specific performance cases, plaintiffs must prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and time is often deemed essential unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Time is of the essence of a contract if the parties have agreed that it is or if the circumstances of the case show that it is.
The Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, and time can be made of the essence through express terms or circumstances.
Time is an essence of the contract in specific performance cases, and plaintiffs must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their obligations.
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must demonstrate both readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and failure to do so within the stipulated time can bar the relief, regardle....
Plaintiff's failure to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract negates entitlement to specific performance under Specific Relief Act.
The court held that the agreement to sell was enforceable despite time not being the essence due to conditions of pending litigation and tenant eviction, affirming the plaintiff's continuous readines....
Time is not automatically the essence of a contract unless expressly stated; the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform must be established.
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.