Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
Saraswathi – Appellant
Versus
Pandurangan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The present Appeal Suit has been instituted against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court at Villupuram in OS No.79 of 2014.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit.
3. The appellant/plaintiff instituted suit for specific performance.
4. The suit property belonged to the defendant and the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.12 lakhs on 25.04.2013. On the same day, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards advance fixing the date of execution of Sale Deed within a period of 18 months. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her par of contract of by paying the balance sale consideration. However, the defendant was not ready to execute his portion of the contract and thus the plaintiff issued legal notice and thereafter instituted the suit for specific performance.
5. The defendant denied the plaint averments and has stated that the plaintiff and her family members are money lenders. They advance loans at high rates of interest on the security of immovable properties.
6. The plaintiff is in the habit of
The court can grant alternative relief of refund even if not explicitly claimed, ensuring fair justice is delivered in contract disputes.
The plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract within the prescribed time is crucial for the enforceability of a sale agreement.
The discretionary nature of specific performance and the equitable considerations involved in granting the relief.
The court determined that the agreement was intended as a security for a loan rather than a sale, emphasizing the necessity of proving readiness and willingness for specific performance.
Proof of continuous readiness and willingness is essential for specific performance; failure to demonstrate such readiness undermines entitlement to equitable relief.
Admitted unregistered sale agreement enforceable if defendant fails to prove sham; plaintiff readiness via notice and deposit suffices for specific performance.
The plaintiff's claim for specific performance was denied due to the lack of clean hands and undisclosed encumbrances; however, he was entitled to the return of the advance amount with interest.
Specific performance denied for lack of continuous readiness proof and evidence of agreement as loan security.
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
