Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.VELMURUGAN, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
M. Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
Leoni Jeyakantha Joy @ Kanthajoy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.78 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Thuoothukudi, seeking for specific performance. After the trial, the said suit was dismissed on 31.07.2014. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint by the appellant before the trial Court are that the appellant was doing real estate business and also running a hotel in Thoothukudi. The suit property originally belonged to one Joseph Maria Pravi Roche. On 15.09.1993, he executed a registered Will in favour of his daughter, namely, Miss. Maria Prema Roche, who was spinster. The said Joseph Maria Pravi Roche died on 02.08.1996. After his demise, his daughter was enjoying the property. Thereafter, she executed a sale agreement in favour of the appellant on 22.11.2007 for valuable consideration of Rs. 29,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs only). She received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as advance and subsequently, on 04.03.2008, she received a sum of Rs.4,13,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Thirteen Thousand only) and another
The appellant failed to prove the genuineness of the sale agreement and his continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, resulting in the dismissal of the specific performance suit.
The plaintiff's failure to prove willingness to perform the contract led to the grant of the alternate relief of refund of the advance money.
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
The burden of proof shifts to the party admitting the signature in a sale agreement to disprove its genuineness, and inconsistency in defense and lack of clean hands can lead to the dismissal of an a....
The burden of proof lies on the party disputing the validity of a written contract, and the conduct of the parties and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness are essential for specific performance....
The court ruled that mere proof of signature does not establish the execution of a sale agreement if fabrication is probable, thus denying specific performance.
The court affirmed that a party's denial of an agreement's execution precludes them from claiming non-performance when readiness to perform has been established, resulting in a right to specific perf....
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....
Specific performance of a contract is a discretionary remedy, requiring proof of readiness and willingness by the plaintiff, which was established in this case.
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
