ANITA SUMANTH, R. VIJAYAKUMAR
B. T. Kumar – Appellant
Versus
K. Subramanian – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
PRAYER: Appeal Suit - filed under Section 96 with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC, to set aside the judgement and decree dated 30.08.2010 made in O.S.No. 53 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul and allow this first appeal.
1. The appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff and has challenged judgment and decree dated 30.08.2010 passed in O.S.No. 53 of 2009 by the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Dindigul. The submissions of Mrs.N.Krishnaveni, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Mr.P.Thiagarajan, learned counsel on record on behalf of the appellant are set out below.
2. The parties had entered into an agreement for sale of the property at (suit property). The suit property ad-measured 1.12.0 acres 2.75 cent and housed a building thereupon. Possession of the suit property had earlier been with the Appellant as he had been running a Teacher’s Training Institute therein.
3. The parties had executed an agreement of sale on 21.06.2006 (marked as Ex.A1 by the Appellant) agreeing upon sale consideration of Rs.50 lakhs towards the sale. Rs.10 lakhs had been paid upfront as advance and the balance consideration of a sum of
Balraj Taneja and Another v. Sunil Madan and Another
Elango v. K.Kamalaveni (died) and others
Ferrodous Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. V. P.Gopirathinam (Dead) & Ors. (2020) AIR (SC) 5041
G.Sunil Panickar v. G.N.Gomathy and another
K.S.Vaidyanadam and others V. Vairavan
M/s.Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals v. M/s.Ramaniyam Real Estates P. Ltd. & Another
Mrs. Saradamani Kannappan V. S.Rajalakshmi & Ors. 2011 (4) CTC 640
N.P.Thirugnanam (Dead) by LRS v. Dr.R.Jagan Mohan Rao and others
Naba Kumar Hazra V. Radhashyam Mahish
P.Purushottam Reddy and Another v. Pratap Steels Ltd. (2002) 2 SCC 686
Rathnavathi and anr. V. Kavita Ganashamdas
Shivaji Balaram Haibatti v. Avinash Maruthi Pawar
Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple and Another v. Meenakshi Ammal and Others
State Bank of India V. Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2013 (6) CTC 789
Syed Dastagir V. T.R.Gopalakrishna Setty
Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited V. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited
Time is of the essence in contracts for immovable property; failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract precludes specific performance.
Plaintiff's failure to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract negates entitlement to specific performance under Specific Relief Act.
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was not established in this case.
Agreement to Sell – In a suit for specific performance of agreement, it is for Plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the agreement – Where a certain amount....
Time is of the essence of a contract if the parties have agreed that it is or if the circumstances of the case show that it is.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract, as mandated by Sect....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness for specific performance, as well as the availability of the def....
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must demonstrate both readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and failure to do so within the stipulated time can bar the relief, regardle....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.