Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, MADURAI BENCH
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
E. Saroja and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
R. Nagarajan and Ors. – Respondents
A.S.(MD)Nos.156 and 197 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014
Decided On : 23-12-2022
Code of Civil Procedure,1908 - Section 96 - Appeal Suit - Sale agreement - Contract - Legal notice - Executed sale deed - Sale transaction - Whether cancellation is valid or not and further decides strongest that really warrant granting reliefs of specific performance - Held, Plaintiff in his plaint would state that he entered into an agreement of sale with first defendant and an agreement was executed of agreement itself he paid advance to first defendant and balance was payable by plaintiff within four months from agreement - He has further pleaded that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and first defendant was not co-operating in executing sale deed and that first defendant was attempting to alienate suit property in favour of third parties contrary to that agreement and because of that plaintiff had to file a suit for permanent injunction reserving his right to file a suit for performance at a later point of time - Appeal Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 27.03.2014 in O.S.No. 43 of 2009 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Trichy.)
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 27.03.2014 in O.S. No. 14 of 2011 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Trichy.)
1. The Appeal Suit in A.S.(MD)No.156 of 2014 is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.43 of 2009, dated 27.03.2014, on the file of I Additional District Court, Trichy.
2. The gist of the plaint is as follows:
(b) The plaintiff came to understand that the first defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No.92 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur against the defendants 2 to 6 for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and in that suit, the present suit survey number 311/7 is involved. The plaintiff, on coming to know about the same, issued a legal notice dated 24.07.2008 to the first defendant calling upon her to get the balance of sale consideration and executed the sale deed, after clearing the encumbrances involved in the suit in O.S.No.92 of 2008.
(c) The first defendant issued a telegram on 25.07.2008 through her Advocate Thiru.N.Rengasamy calling upon the plaintiff to complete the sale transaction on that date itself and in the said telegram, it has been stated that the first defendant will be waiting at the Registrar's office at Thuraiyur on 25.07.2008 itself. The plaintiff, on getting the said telegram, has also gone to the Registrar office, Thuraiyur on 25.07.2008 and waited for the whole day, but the first defendant did not turn up. The plaintiff came to know that in order to wriggle out of the contract, on some wrong advise, has sent the telegram. Thereafter, the first defendant has sent a legal notice on 30.07.2008, terminating the sale agreement, on the ground that the plaintiff did not turn up on 25.07.2008 and get the sale deed executed.
(d) The plaintiff has then sent a rejoinder dated 31.07.2008 to the telegram dated 25.07.2008. Since the first defendant started making hectic attempts to sell the suit property in collusion and conspiracy with the defendants 2 to 6 to the defendants 7 and 8 in contravention of the suit sale agreement, the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.288 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur against the defendants 1 to 8 for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from alienating the suit properties either to the defendants 7 and 8 or others and that the suit is pending. Pending the above suit, the first defendant through her power agent K.V.Rajendran sold the suit properties to the defendants 10 and 11, vide sale deed dated 23.01.2009 with an intention to defraud the plaintiff and as such, the sale deed in favour of the defendants 10 and 11 is not valid and the plaintiff is not bound by the sale. The defendants 10 and 11 are not the bonafide purchasers for value and they have only purchased litigation. The first defendant has allegedly sold the property in favour of the defendants 10 and 11 for total price of Rs.3,77,000/- and the same itself would speak about
The deceased plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract and the lack of evidence to support the claim led to the setting aside of the lower courts' decisions.
The court ruled that a plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to execute a sale agreement, and failure to do so, along with undue hardship to defendants, can preclude specific performance.
The plaintiff must prove their readiness and willingness to perform the contract in order to be entitled to specific performance. A subsequent suit for specific performance is barred if the plaintiff....
Specific performance of contract – To avail equitable relief of specific performance, plaintiff has to establish his readiness and willingness to pay balance amount and to execute Sale Deed from date....
Specific Performance of Contract – Readiness and willingness does not mean readiness and willingness to pay or receive money but intention of parties to execute their part of Agreement from date of A....
To obtain a decree for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract at all stages from the date of the agreement till the da....
Agreement to sell – Suit seeking relief of specific performance cannot be allowed where Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract.
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
