Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SATHISH NINAN, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ
The Good Samaritan Charitable Trust – Appellant
Versus
Samuel (Died) S/o. Ommen – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sathish Ninan, J.
The suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff is in appeal.
2. The plaint schedule property having an extent of 4 acres and 44.5 cents belong to defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiff is a trust represented by its chairman. He is hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”. According to the plaintiff, he entered into Ext.A1 agreement for sale dated 05.08.2004 with the owners, for purchase of the property for a total sale consideration of ₹ 53,34,000/-. The agreement was entered into through the first defendant as the power of attorney holder of the owners, as per Ext.A12 power of attorney dated 20.07.2004, since they are abroad at United States of America. Under Ext.A1, the period fixed for performance was three months. An amount of ₹ 1 lakh was paid on the date of Ext.A1 towards advance sale consideration. Subsequently the period was extended till December and thereafter, under Ext.A2, the period was extended up to 30.01.2008. Alleging failure on the part of the defendants to honour the agreement, the suit was filed.
3. The defendants denied Exts.A1 and A2 agreements, and also Ext.A12 power of attorney.
The plaintiff must prove the genuineness of agreements and readiness to perform for specific performance; failure to do so results in dismissal of the suit.
Point of Law : Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction – Agreement of Sale - non mentioning of the correct survey number in the agreement of sale cannot be held to be due to inadverten....
In suits for specific performance, plaintiffs must establish readiness, willingness, and privity of contract; lack of credible evidence leads to dismissal of claims for equitable relief.
Comparison of signatures by Court is always a hazardous course. Court should not as a matter of course loosely resort to application of Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act.
The limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance starts from the date of refusal of performance, not from the execution date of the agreement.
The plaintiff must prove the validity of the sale agreement and his readiness and willingness to perform the contract in a specific performance case.
While a document is registered and particulars as required by Sections 52 and 58 of the Registration Act are endorsed on it as provided in Section 60, a presumption by reference to Section 114 [Illus....
The plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the sale agreement, and the amendment to include a claim for the return of the advance amount was not permissible as it would change the nature of the s....
The plaintiff must prove the passing of consideration and the genuineness of the sale agreement for the discretionary relief of specific performance.
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
