IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.R. Anitha, J.
Sundar Lal S/o. K.K.Vasu – Appellant
Versus
Madhusoodanan S/o. Parthan – Respondents
R.F.A. No. 28 Of 2019
Decided On : 15-09-2022
Civil Law – Agreement of Sale - Specific performance of contract - Readiness and willingness - specific performance is not allowable since it will result in undue enrichment to the plaintiff and undue loss and injury to the defendant - An application for amendment of the pleadings is not to be disallowed on the ground that the same is barred by limitation
Finding of the Court:
A counter claim is also sought for directing the plaintiff to vacate from the plaint schedule property and surrender vacant possession to the defendants - An application for amendment of the pleadings is not to be disallowed on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. It is well within the discretion of the court to decide whether inspite of the bar of limitation the proposed amendment to be allowed to secure the ends of justice. In that event court can also ensure that no prejudice is caused to the opposite side in allowing the amendment.
Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.83/2011 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Alappuzha.
2. The appellant is the first defendant. The suit was one for specific performance of contract. (Parties would hereinafter be referred as per their status before the trial court).
3. Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant for the purchase of plaint schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.13 lakhs on 20.09.2010. On the date of agreement Rs.1,50,000/-was paid as advance sale consideration and the time of six months was stipulated for execution of the agreement. On 01.10.2010, Rs.6,50,000/-was further paid by the plaintiff towards part of sale consideration. On the next day, i.e. on 02.10.2010 first defendant shifted his residence from the property and plaintiff was put in possession and thereafter plaintiff and family have been residing in the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff invested a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-for maintenance of the house. Plaintiff repeatedly demanded the defendant to execute the agreement and he has been ready to perform his part of the contract always by paying the balance sale consideration. But the first defendant was not willing to perform his part and finally a registered notice dated 09.12.2010 was issued to the first defendant expressing the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to execute the agreement. On 15.12.2010, first defendant and his henchmen came to the house and intimidated the plaintiff and family and attempted to drive them out of the house. Immediately, O.S.No.875/2010 was filed before the Munsiff’s Court seeking for permanent injunction. As per letter dated 11.03.2011 plaintiff demanded the defendant to be present before the Sub Registry Office, Kalavoor on 16.01.2011 to execute the sale deed. But the defendant did not turn up. Plaintiff has got sufficient means to complete the transaction. Hence the suit.
4. Subsequently plaint was amended impleading defendants 2 to 4 for the reason that first defendant availed a loan from the second defendant and committed default in repaying the amount. Second defendant initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the first defendant and he failed to clear off the debt. When the defendants 2 to 4 initiated revenue recovery proceedings plaintiff filed O.S.No.573/2012 for injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Subsequently the plaintiff cleared off the debt due to the second defendant also. Thereafter as per order dated 12.02.2015 in I.A.No.150/2015 plaint schedule was amended incorporating 5 cents and excess land and the building and other improvements comprising in re-survey No.121/4/1.
5. First defendant filed written statement stoutly denying the allegations in the plaint. Suit has been filed suppressing the material facts and plaintiff is not entitled to get any decree by way of equity or discretion. Agreement executed is admitted. Receipt of Rs.1,50,000/-on the date of agreement towards advance and Rs.6,50,000/-subsequently towards part of sale consideration is also admitted. There was no transfer of possession of property in pursuance of the agreement and on humanitarian consideration plaintiff was allowed to occupy the building. It is denied that plaintiff invested Rs.1,50,000/-for maintenance of the house. Plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract. O.S.No.875/2010 was a frivolus suit. The defendant was not informed to be present before the Sub Registry Office on 16.01.2011. Plaintiff was not having the balance sale consideration for executing the sale deed. The house in the plaint schedule property is the only house of the first defendant and family. He was compelled to sell his property to discharge his huge debt due to loss in business. Amount was due from him to Union Bank of India, State Bank of Travancore, Canara Bank as well as Kerala State Financial Enterprises (K.S.F.E.).
Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal & Ors.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson & Ors.
Sundara Iyer Sthanunatha Iyer v. Anantharaman Pillai Chidambaram Pillai
Pankaja & Anr. v. Yellappa (Dead) By LRs & Ors.
T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. v. T.N. Electricity Board & Ors.
Alkapuri Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Jayantibhai Naginbhai.
Amendment of plaint - An application for amendment of the pleadings is not to be disallowed on the ground that the same is barred by limitation
(1) Agreement to sell – Specific performance will not be ordered if contract itself suffers from some defect which makes contract invalid or unenforceable – Discretion of court will not be there even....
The court established that the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act must consider all relevant evidence, including the existence of alternative properties, when determining whether ....
The court affirmed the plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance of the agreement of sale, emphasizing the defendant's failure to fulfill contractual obligations.
The court affirmed that amendments to pleadings should be liberally granted to serve justice, particularly when the cause of action arises from recent developments, like the dismissal of a related ci....
A contract for the sale of property can only be enforced to the extent of a party's ownership rights, particularly where ancestral claims exist and co-ownership affects transactional authority.
The court affirmed the necessity of proof of payment in contracts while ordering specific performance, highlighting discretion in upholding an advance payment despite procedural flaws.
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
The court clarified that an amendment to incorporate specific performance in a suit does not invalidate claims already made if they imply specific performance.
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.