SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 2574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, S. SOUNTHAR, JJ.
S. Guruprasad - Appellant
Versus
S. Venkatasway Reddy - Respondent
A.S.No. 280 of 2015
Decided On : 18-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel for M/s. K. Sasindran, Advocate. For the Respondents:C. Jagadish, Advocate.

The readiness and willingness of the parties to perform their part of the contract, as per the agreement of sale, is crucial in determining the entitlement to the discretionary relief of specific performance.

Headnote:

Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The appellant failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as per the agreement of sale dated 12.09.2008. The Court held that the suit for specific performance is not barred by limitation, but the appellant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance due to the long unexplained delay in approaching the Court. The respondents were found to be ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, while the appellant failed to prove the same. The judgment and decree dated 28.11.2014, dismissing the suit for specific performance and directing the respondents to refund the advance amount to the appellant, was upheld.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale against the respondents, claiming that he was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed in his favor. The respondents denied the appellant's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the appellant failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The suit for specific performance was dismissed, and the respondents were directed to refund the advance amount to the appellant.

Issues: The issues included whether the suit was barred by limitation, whether time was the essence of the contract, and whether the appellant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the appellant failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, and the suit for specific performance was not entitled to the discretionary relief due to the long unexplained delay in approaching the Court.

Final Decision: The First Appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2014, which dismissed the suit for specific performance and directed the respondents to refund the advance amount to the appellant.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2014 made in O.S.No.76 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Court, Hosur.)

V.M. Velumani, J.

The appellant is plaintiff and respondents are defendants in O.S.No.76 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Court, Hosur. The appellant filed the said suit for specific performance of the suit sale agreement against the respondents, directing them to execute and register the sale deed with respect to the suit property in favour of the appellant within the time allowed by this Court, after receiving the balance of sale consideration and deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, failing which, to give liberty to the appellant to get the sale deed executed, registered and take delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property through the Court-s Execution Proceedings. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2014, rejecting the relief for specific performance and directed the respondents to repay the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- received from the appellant as advance.

2. Challenging the said judgment and decree dated 28.11.2014 made in O.S.No.76 of 2011, the appellant has come out with the present First Appeal.

The case of the appellant:

2(i). The 1st respondent is owner of the suit schedule property and the same having been allotted to the 1st respondent in the registered partition Deed Document bearing No.1036/2005 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Hosur. The respondents 2 and 3 are sons of the 1st respondent. The appellant agreed to purchase the suit property from the respondents and after negotiations, the sale consideration was arrived at Rs.35,75,000/-. The appellant and respondents entered into an agreement of sale dated 12.09.2008. The appellant paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, as advance amount, on the date of entering into agreement. As per the terms of agreement, the appellant has to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,75,000/- within 90 days from the date of agreement. If the respondents failed to perform their part of contract, the appellant can approach the Court for specific performance of agreement of sale.

2(ii). The appellant was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement of sale The respondents were not willing to perform their part of the agreement of sale in spite of repeated demands through panchayatars. Even in November 2008, the appellant, through common friends and mediators, approached the respondents to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed. The 1st respondent requested for some more time as he got some personal problems.

2(iii). The appellant and respondents went to survey the land. At that time, one Veera Reddy and Satheesh Babu objected to the same and informed that suits are pending in respect of the suit properties. The appellant received notices in O.S.No.116 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Hosur, filed by one Satheesh Babu, son of Veera Reddy and O.S.No.7 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur, filed by Veera Reddy. The appellant came to know that the respondents suppressed the pendency of suits and entered into the agreement of sale.

2(iv). The appellant sent a notice dated 02.02.2009 even before receiving the Court notice in O.S.Nos.7 of 2006 and 116 of 2008. The respondents refused to receive the said notice sent by the appellant. Again, the appellant requested the respondents on several occasions to complete the sale process after solving the disputes, but the respondents gave evasive reply and also demanded more money over and above the sale consideration agreed upon in the sale agreement, without settling the disputes pending in respect of the suit properties.

2(v).The appellant was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed in his favour.

2(vi). On the above pleadings, the appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top