Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Sakthivel
Palanivel – Appellant
Versus
Balasubramanian – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.Sakthivel, J.
This Second Appeal is directed by the unsuccessful plaintiff assailing the Judgment and Decree dated September 13, 2017 passed in A.S.No.65 of 2013 by the 'II Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated January 17, 2013 passed in O.S.No.12 of 2009 by the ‘Subordinate Court, Chidambaram' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was confirmed.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
3. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff's father -Krishnamurthy and first defendant's father - Kuppusamy are cousins. The second defendant is the plaintiff's brother's wife. The father of first defendant left India at the age of 15 and permanently settled at Singapore and married one Mariammal there. They have one son viz., first defendant, and four daughters. All the daughters are married and settled in Singapore. In 1965, first defendant’s parents came to India and purchased some of the Suit Properties in their name separately and some in the name of first defendant who was then minor, and left India allowi
The court reaffirmed that equitable relief via specific performance requires proven readiness and legitimate title, emphasizing the importance of the parties' conduct, especially regarding collusion ....
The court affirmed that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations, which was established in this case despite claims....
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.
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.
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: Sub-section (3) to Section 12 of the specific relief act, 1363 corresponds to section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 . But there is one difference between the two provisions, where....
The plaintiff must establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract to be entitled to specific performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
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
