Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.MARIA CLETE
R. Vigneshwari – Appellant
Versus
B. Hemalatha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.D. Maria Clete, J.
This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2018 in O.S. No.550 of 2012 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, whereby the suit for specific performance and consequential reliefs came to be dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this appeal as they were arrayed in the suit.
3. The plaintiff’s case is that she instituted the suit for specific performance on the basis of an alleged sale agreement dated 21.07.2010, stated to have been executed between her and late R. Balasubramaniam, in respect of one acre of land forming part of his 60% undivided share in the suit property. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs.20,00,000/-, and the plaintiff claims to have paid an advance of Rs.15,00,000/-. The time stipulated for completion of the sale was two years from 20.07.2010. According to the plaintiff, she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract; however, the vendor did not execute the sale deed and died on 31.01.2012. Thereafter, notwithstanding the issuance of legal notice and exchange of correspondence, the defendants, being the legal he
In suits for specific performance, plaintiffs must prove the agreement's genuineness and continuous readiness to perform, particularly when execution is disputed.
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 plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract within the prescribed time is crucial for the enforceability of a sale agreement.
Specific performance – Relief of specific performance is equitable remedy – Plaintiff have to necessarily show their readiness and willingness in performing their part of contract from date of agreem....
Proof of continuous readiness and willingness is essential for specific performance; failure to demonstrate such readiness undermines entitlement to equitable relief.
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....
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was not established in this case.
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 clarifies that subsequent conduct indicating unwillingness to perform a contract negates entitlement for specific performance, necessitating a return of advance amounts instead.
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
