Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.Y. EQBAL
Srinivasan & Another
Versus
Kumarasamy
S.A.No.1619 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided On : 20-08-2010
Time is not the essence of the contract - Specific Performance - The court held that time is not the essence of the contract for immovable property and even if notice was not given before the expiry of the contract, subsequent notices showing willingness to perform the contract were sufficient. The court emphasized the readiness and willingness of the Plaintiff to perform the contract.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract, which was decreed and confirmed in Appeal. The Defendants appealed against the judgments of the lower courts, arguing that notice was not given before the expiry of the contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the Second Appeal, stating that time is not the essence of the contract for immovable property and that subsequent notices of willingness to perform the contract were sufficient. The court emphasized the Plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Plaintiff's failure to give notice before the expiry of the contract affected the specific performance of the contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that time is not the essence of the contract for immovable property and subsequent notices of willingness to perform the contract were sufficient, emphasizing the Plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Consequently, the above MP was also dismissed.
1. Heard the Counsel for the parties.
2. Defendants are the Appellants herein. The Second Appeal is against the concurrent judgments.
3. The Suit filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent herein for specific performance of the contract was decreed and the same was confirmed in Appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants herein assailed the judgment and decree of the Courts below on the ground that before expiry of the time fixed in the contract, notice was not given and the Courts below wrongly relied upon the evidence of the Plaintiff that the First Defendant/First Appellant herein admitted in his cross-examination that the plaintiff orally asked him before issuing the notice.
5. It is well settled that time is not the essence of the contract for immovable property. Even assuming that before expiry of the contract, notice was not given by the Plaintiff about his willingness, but subsequent thereto, notices were given showing his willingness to perform his part of the contract. The Courts below have given concurrent findings about the readiness and willingness of the Plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law is involved.
6. The Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is also dismissed.
AI
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
