Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.SIVAGNANAM, J
Premraja – Appellant
Versus
Pachaiammal (Died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Aggrieved over the Judgement and Decree dated 07.08.2014 passed in O.S.No.87 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Court, Puducherry, the defendant has preferred the appeal suit in A.S.Nos.80 & 81 of 2015 and the plaintiff has preferred the Cross Objection in Cross.Obj.No.14 of 2024.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.
3. Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction.
4. The defendant in O.S.No.87 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Court, Puducherry, is the appellant in A.S.No.80 of 2015 and A.S.No.81 of 2015 and in the cross objection, the plaintiff is the cross objector.
5. The plaintiff's case is as follows:
Originally A and B schedule suit properties belonged to one Gothandapani, the father of the defendant. Gothandapani entered into a sale agreement in respect of the A schedule suit property with the plaintiff on 30.11.1984 for a valid sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- and also received an advance amount of Rs.8,000/-towards the sale consideration from the plaintiff. On 02.03.1985 the said Gothandapani also received the balance sale consideration of Rs.2000/- from the plaintiff.
In contracts for the sale of immovable property, time is not considered the essence unless explicitly stated, allowing for specific performance despite delays.
The court emphasized the importance of providing convincing evidence and demonstrating genuine interest in seeking specific performance of a contract.
Time is not of the essence in a contract for sale of immovable property if the seller accepts late payments, indicating a waiver of the stipulated time frame.
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.
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.
The court found the specific performance suit invalid due to the sale agreement being deemed fabricated, emphasizing that such claims cannot coexist with adverse possession expectations.
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
