Madras High Court
RAMANUJAM,SINGARAVELU
Hamsammal - Appellant
Versus
P.V.Thakkar - Respondent
Decided On : 09/23/1981
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - CONTRACT OF SALE - ENFORCEMENT - DELAY IN INSTITUTION OF SUIT - WAIVER - ABANDONMENT - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING GRANT OF RELIEF - INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT - DELIVERY OF VACANT POSSESSION - IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant agreed to sell and the respondent agreed to purchase the suit building for a sum of Rs. 55,000/- and a written agreement of sale was executed between the parties on 20-10-1974 under Ex. A.1. A sum of Rupees 2,502/- was paid as advance and within two weeks thereafter, a further sum of Rs. 2,500/- was paid-Vide Ex. A.2. A tenant was in possession of the property. But in spite of it, the appellant-defendant agreed to evict him and put the respondent in vacant possession of the same within 90 days. There were also two mortgage debts over the suit property and the plaintiff agreed to discharge the same. For some reason or other, the tenant could not be evicted within that short period and both parties treated time was not the essence of the contract. On 5-3-1975, the respondent herein at the request of the appellant, discharged the two mortgages amounting to Rs. 32,680, and obtained registered receipts for the discharge - Vide Exs. A.3 and A.4.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that time was not the essence of the contract, the respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and it was the appellant who committed breach of the contract. The court also found that the delay in filing the suit was not unreasonable and was condoned by the appellant.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent herein was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? 2. Whether the appellant committed breach of the agreement and if so, whether the respondent is entitled to specific performance of the agreement?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent was entitled to specific performance of the contract because: - Time was not the essence of the contract. - The respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. - The appellant committed breach of the contract. - The delay in filing the suit was not unreasonable and was condoned by the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs. Time for execution of the sale deed was fixed at six weeks.
JUDGEMENT :- The defendant is the appellant. The respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance of the contract of sale D/- 20-10-1974, with the following averments: The appellant defendant is the owner of a house property situate at Oppannakara, St. Coimbatore town. On 20-10-1974, she entered into an agreement with the respondent herein, under which the former agreed to sell the property for a sum of Rs. 55,000/-. A written agreement Ex. A.1 was duly executed between the parties incorporating all the terms and a sum of Rs. 2502/-was paid as advance, A tenant was in possession of the said property and therefore it was agreed that the balance amount has to be paid at the time of the sale deed and a time of 90 days was fixed for that purpose. It was also agreed that vacant possession has to be delivered within that time, after evicting the tenant. On 2-11-1974, the respondent herein paid another sum of Rs. 2,500/- to the appellant. However, the appellant could not recover possession from the tenant within the stipulated time of 90 days. There were also two mortgage debts over the suit property and the respondent herein agreed to discharge the same from out of the sale price. In March 1975, the respondent herein discharged the two mortgage debts amounting to Rs. 32.600/-at the request of the appellant. The respondent herein called upon the appellant to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance amount. But the latter was postponing it under some pretext or other. The respondent then gave a notice to the
appellant on 01-09-1975 setting out all the facts and the appellant gave a reply expressing her readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed and complete the transaction. But she continued to evade and committed breach of the contract and hence, the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale.
2. The appellant-defendant admitted the agreement, but contended that she did not quite understand the terms of the agreement, since it was written in English. Further, the property was in the possession of a tenant and it was not possible for her, she being a woman, to evict the tenant who is in possession of the property and hand over vacant possession of the property to the appellant. The appellant was always ready to receive the balance and execute the sale deed; but it was the respondent herein, who did not evince any interest in getting the sale deed. In fact, in his notice dt. 1-9-1975, the respondent has demanded only the return of all the amounts paid by him and therefore he had abandoned the claim for specific performance. Therefore, at best, he is entitled only to get back the amounts paid by him and not entitled to seek specific performancs of the agreement.
3. The learned Subordinate Judge found on the facts of the case that time was not the essence of the contract between the parties, that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that it was only the defendant, who evaded and finally committed breach of the contract, consequently, the trial court decreed the suit for specific performance of the contract and directed the appellant to deliver only symbolic possession of the property. The defendant is aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the trial Court and has filed this appeal.
4. The following points arise for determination in this appeal :-
1. Whether the respondent herein was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?
2. Whether the appellant committed breach of the agreement and if so, whether the respondent is entitled to specific performance of the agreement?
5. The following facts are not in dispute. The appellant agreed to sell and the respondent agreed to purchase the suit building for a sum of Rs. 55,000/-and a written agreement of sale was executed between the parties on 20-10-1974 under Ex. A.1. A sum of Rupees 2,502/- was paid as advance and within two weeks thereafter, a further sum of Rs. 2,500/- was paid-Vide Ex. A.2.
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.