Back
R. SAKTHIVEL
R. S. Sekar – Appellant
Versus
Saminathan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated June 20, 2018 passed in A.S.No.34 of 2017 on the file of Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Arni, whereby the Judgment and Decree dated August 10, 2012 passed in O.S.No.92 of 2008 on the file of Subordinate Court, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District was reversed.
This Second Appeal is directed by the unsuccessful plaintiff before the First Appellate Court, assailing the Judgment and Decree dated June 20, 2018 passed in A.S.No. 34 of 2017 on the file of ‘Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Arni’ ['First Appellate Court' for short], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated August 10, 2012 passed in O.S.No. 92 of 2008 on the file of ‘Subordinate Court, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District’ ['Trial Court' for short] was reversed.
2. Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, the parties will be denoted as per their array in the Original Suit.
Plaintiff’s Case in Brief:
3. In the Plaint it is averred that the first defendant entered into a Sale Agreement on January 17, 2007 with the plaintiff, agreeing to sell his lands measuring roughly 2 Ac
The plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract precludes specific performance, but the first defendant must return the advance amount with interest.
A sale agreement signed by one party is valid if it evidences mutual consent, and readiness and willingness do not require specific phrasing in the plaint.
The court ruled that doubts surrounding the authenticity of a Sale Agreement preclude the granting of specific performance, emphasizing the plaintiff's burden to prove the agreement's validity.
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 court ruled that a Sale Agreement was not effectively revoked, and the plaintiff was always ready to perform, necessitating specific performance.
Point of law: Unless a statute specifically requires a plea to be in any particular form, it can be in any form. No specific phraseology or language is required to take such a plea. The language in S....
A sale agreement remains valid unless clearly revoked; unilateral returns and notices do not suffice to terminate obligations when the other party shows readiness to perform.
Unilateral revocation of a sale agreement without clear notice is invalid; the plaintiff must demonstrate readiness to perform for specific performance to be granted.
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
