Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN, J
SHERLY D/o. KOLAMKANNY JACOB – Appellant
Versus
JOSHY S/o. MANKATTIL ARAVINDAKSHAN – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The defendant in OS No. 417 of 2011, on the files of the Principal Subordinate Court, Irinjalakuda, who is aggrieved by the decree and judgment in the above suit, has filed this appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in this suit.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant and respondent/plaintiff in detail. Perused the pleadings and evidence including the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the defendant.
3. For effective and easy discussion, the parties in this appeal will be referred to as ‘plaintiff’, and ‘defendant’ hereafter.
4. According to the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 4 lakh to the defendant. Accordingly, a written agreement was executed between them on 05.06.2010 and Rs. 3,60,000/- was paid as advance sale consideration. That apart, possession of the property also was handed over to the plaintiff in terms of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the TP Act'). Even though the plaintiff has been ready and willing to execute the sale deed by
Specific performance requires proof of contract execution and plaintiff's readiness to fulfill obligations, with courts exercising discretion based on evidence.
The Plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as well as the Defendant's failure to prove that the sale agreement was fabricated, were crucial in the court's decision to confirm ....
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
Specific performance – Relief of specific performance is equitable remedy – Plaintiff have to necessarily show their readiness and willingness in performing their part of contract from date of agreem....
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove the execution of the agreement and readiness to perform the contract, including financial capability.
The burden of proof lies on the party disputing the validity of a written contract, and the conduct of the parties and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness are essential for specific performance....
Agreement to Sell – Continuous willingness on part of plaintiff is condition precedent to grant relief of specific performance.
Specific performance can be granted when the buyer has made substantial payments and the seller's refusal to execute the sale deed is unjustified, even if specific issues on readiness and willingness....
The court upheld the trial court's discretion in granting specific performance of a sale agreement, emphasizing the necessity of proving execution and the bona fide intention of the plaintiff.
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
