Back
R. SUBRAMANIAN, R. SAKTHIVEL
A. L. Deivanathan – Appellant
Versus
R. Saravanan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. Sakthivel, J.
[PRAYER: First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2017 passed in O.S.No.190 of 2011 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Salem.]
The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.190 of 2011 on the file of 'III Additional District Judge, Salem' (henceforth 'Trial Court' for the sake of brevity).
2. For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit i.e., the appellants herein and the respondents herein will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants respectively.
3. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated January 18, 2017, passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.190 of 2011, the plaintiffs have preferred this Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of ‘Code of Civil Procedure, 1908’ (henceforth ‘CPC’), praying to set aside the aforementioned judgment and decree.
Plaintiffs’ case
4. The case of the plaintiffs is that, the 1st defendant is the father of the 2nd and 3rd defendants. Defendants acquired the Suit Propriety measuring an extent of 46 Cents under a registered
The court established that a sale agreement not duly registered is unenforceable, and time is essential in contracts unless explicitly stated otherwise.
A sale agreement must be duly stamped and registered if it involves possession transfer; time is of the essence unless explicitly stated otherwise.
The court established that a sale agreement lacking necessary signatures and evidence of payment cannot be enforced for specific performance, but a partial refund of advance is permissible.
The plaintiff's failure to file the suit within the limitation period and to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract resulted in dismissal of the specific performance claim.
A sale agreement signed solely by the vendor is enforceable, and no fixed date of performance in an agreement allows suit filing within three years of notice of refusal.
Specific performance of a contract is a discretionary remedy that requires the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform their obligations within the stipulated time.
The court ruled that time is not an essence of contract in specific performance cases, and the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance despite the trial court's dismissal.
The court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance of the agreement of sale despite the defendant's claims, as the suit was filed within the limitation period and time was not ....
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
