Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
M. Rajendiran Santhi (died) & Another - Appellant
Versus
S. Krishnan (died) & Others – Respondents
S.A. No. 667 of 2019
Decided on : 18-06-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :S. Viswanathan, Advocate
Absence of continuous readiness and willingness is crucial for obtaining the relief of specific performance.
Headnote:
Specific Performance - Sale Agreement - 24.08.2000 - No specific time fixed for completion of sale - Plaintiffs not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract - No material evidencing readiness and willingness - Absence of readiness and willingness - Plaintiffs not interested in purchasing the suit property - Complete absence of readiness and willingness - Declining the relief of specific performance
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. Defendants disputed the sale agreement and contended that plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.
Finding of the Court:
Courts found that plaintiffs did not show readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, and were not interested in purchasing the suit property. Therefore, relief of specific performance was declined.
Issues: Plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform the contract, Defendants' dispute of the sale agreement, Entitlement of plaintiffs to specific performance
Ratio Decidendi: Absence of readiness and willingness is crucial for obtaining the relief of specific performance. Plaintiffs must show continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract.
Final Decision: Second appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law is found to be involved.
(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.04.2018 passed in A.S.No.54 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 15.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.128 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.)
1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 26.04.2018 passed in A.S.No.54 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Special Court, Krishnagiri, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 15.02.2008 passed in O.S.No.128 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.
3. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs against the defendants for the relief of specific performance.
4. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiffs, the deceased Aattukkara Sennappan had agreed to sell the suit property in their favour for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and in evidence thereof, executed a sale agreement on 24.08.2000 and received a sum of Rs.8,000/- as advance on the date of the sale agreement and agreed to receive the balance sum and execute the sale deed at any time as required by the plaintiffs and further, according to the plaintiffs, the possession of the suit property had been handed over to them by the deceased Aattukkara Sennappan on the date of the sale agreement and further, according to them, inasmuch as they had been always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and obtain the sale deed from the deceased Aattukkara Sennappan, for one reason or the other, the deceased Aattukkara Sennappan had been postponing the same and after his demise, the plaintiffs had been requesting the defendants to execute the sale deed as per the sale agreement and even the defendants had been evading the same for one or the other reason and left with no other alternative, according to the plaintiffs, they had issued the legal notice on 07.10.2005 calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed on the receipt of the balance sale consideration and the defendants, instead of complying with the abovesaid demand, issued a reply notice containing false allegations and hence, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs.
5. The defendants, in toto, had disputed the sale agreement projected by the plaintiffs and according to them, no such sale agreement had been entered into between the parties concerned and also contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to seek and obtain the relief prayed for as they had never been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract at any point of time and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit.
6. On the abovesaid pleadings, the parties went for trial and it is found that along with the abovesaid suit, the suit laid by the first defendant in O.S.No.341 of 2005 was also taken up for joint trial.
7. Based on the materials placed on record by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial Court was pleased to dismiss both the suits. Impugning the judgment and decree passed in their suit for specific performance, the plaintiffs have preferred the first appeal. The first appellate Court also concurred with the judgment and decree of the trial Court and thereby, dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been preferred.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that the suit has come to be laid by the plaintiffs for enforcing the sale agreement on 24.08.2000. On a perusal of the sale agreement, it is found that no specific time had been fixed for the completion of the sale. However, even if no time has been fixed in the sale agreement for the completion of the transaction, the agreement holder viz., the plaintiffs should endeavour and ensure that the
