Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Robin Phukan, J.
Ala Uddin Mazumder S/O Late Sunahar Ali Mazumder – Petitioner
Versus
Fakar Uddin Mazarbhuiya S/O Lalu Miya Mazarbhuiya And Ors. – Respondents
RSA/162/2024
Decided On : 07-01-2025
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and findings are as follows:
Readiness and Willingness in Specific Performance Claims: In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must establish their readiness and willingness to perform the contract. Formal notice to the defendant is not a mandatory requirement to demonstrate such readiness, as repeated demands and conduct can suffice (!) (!) .
Issue of Readiness and Willingness: Although the trial court did not explicitly frame an issue on the plaintiff's readiness and willingness, the first appellate court formulated this point and examined the evidence, concluding that the plaintiffs had demonstrated their readiness through their conduct and repeated demands for performance (!) (!) .
Evidence and Findings of the Appellate Court: The appellate court's detailed analysis of oral and documentary evidence justified its conclusion that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their contractual obligations, despite the absence of formal notices. The court emphasized that proof of readiness does not necessarily require deposit or payment of the remaining consideration, aligning with legal principles that focus on conduct and demand (!) (!) .
Court's Discretion and Evidence Evaluation: The appellate court's findings were based on a comprehensive evaluation of evidence, and the court found no perversity or legal error in these findings. The court also noted that the absence of a formal notice does not negate the plaintiff's readiness, provided there is evidence of repeated approaches and demands (!) (!) .
Substantial Questions of Law: The appellate court concluded that no substantial question of law was involved in the appeal, and the appeal was therefore dismissed. The court emphasized that the involvement of legal questions must be demonstrable and that factual findings based on evidence are within the court's discretion (!) (!) .
Procedural Aspects: The court clarified that even if an issue on readiness and willingness was not explicitly framed in the trial court, the appellate court's authority under procedural rules allows it to formulate such issues and examine the evidence accordingly (!) (!) .
Final Judgment: The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the findings of readiness and willingness were supported by evidence and that no legal error warranted interference. The appellant was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal principles underscore that proof of readiness and willingness in specific performance suits can be established through conduct and repeated demands, without the necessity of formal notices or deposit, and that courts are justified in evaluating evidence to determine such readiness.
ORDER :
Robin Phukan, J.
Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 08.08.2023, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Hailakandi, in Title Appeal No. 05/2022. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree dated 08.08.2023, the learned Addl. District Judge, Hailakandi had affirmed and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division),Hailakandi, dated 25.11.2019, in Title Suit No. 01/2018. It is also to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25.11.2019, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailakandi, had decreed the Title Suit No. 01/2018.
3. Perused the memo of appeal as well as the grounds mentioned therein and the suggested substantial questions of law. Also perused the impugned judgment and decree, dated 08.08.2023, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Hailakandi, in Title Appeal No.05/2022, and the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hailakandi, in Title Suit No. 01/2018.
4. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties, as referred to in the Title Suit will be adopted here.
5. The background facts leading to filing of the present second appeal are briefly stated as under:-
Being aggrieved the plaintiffs had instituted a Title Suit being Title Suit No. 01/2018, before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hailakandi (trial court), praying for directing the defendants to cause survey of Scheduled land through court and to find out total quantity of land within the boundaries and then to fix the price as per agreement dated 04.02.2017 and to direct the defendant to execute the sale deed for the land to be found and take remaining sale consideration within time specified by the court and in the event of failing to execute sale deed the court is to execute the sale deed and to deposit the remaining amount of price in the court that would be fixed after survey and with cost of the suit.
The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement. His stand is that He entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs on 20.10.2016, fixing the sale consideration at Rs. 8,00,000/, out of which the plaintiffs had paid a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/ and undertook to pay the balance amount of Rs. 6,10,000/ on or before 31.01.2017. But, the plaintiffs could not mange the balance amount. Thereafter, again on intervention of well wishers another agreement was entered into by them on 04.02.2017 and at that time the plaintiffs had paid another sum of Rs. 2,10,000/ to him. His further stand was that the plaintiffs were never ready to perform their part of the contract by paying the balance amount of sale consideration and that plaintiff No. 1 was involved in a poli
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract must be established, but formal notice is not a prerequisite for demonstrating such readiness.
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....
Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract for specific performance; mere assertion is insufficient.
The plaintiff's demonstration of readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, was crucial in determining the entitlement to specific per....
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 importance of establishing readiness and willingness from the inception of a contract in specific performance cases.
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.
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....
In a suit for specific performance, plaintiffs must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, supported by cogent evidence; mere assertions are insufficient.
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....
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
