IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
P. Dharmichand – Appellant
Versus
C.M. Kamal Kamala Bai (since deceased) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, J.
This Second Appeal is preferred as against the decree and judgment dated 15.03.2021 passed in A.S. No.25 of 2018, on the file of the II Additional District Court, Vellore @ Ranipet, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 23.07.2018 passed in O.S. No.168 of 2010, on the file of the Sub Court, Ranipet, Vellore.
2. The present Second Appeal is preferred by the 2nd defendant in the above suit. The 1st respondent as plaintiff filed the above suit for specific performance of contract of sale agreement and alternatively to refund the advance amount of Rs.2,75,359/- to the plaintiff by the defendants together with future interest at 18% per annum and for costs.
3. The facts leading to filing of the above suit are as follows:
3.1. The 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property. She entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff to sell the suit property for a valid consideration of Rs.7,70,000/- on 18.04.2008 to meet out her medical expenses. On the date of agreement, the 1st defendant received a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- and agreed to receive the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- at the time of registration of sale deed. Since the 1st defend
K. Krishnan Nair and others vs. K. Parameswaran Pillai (died) and others
The court affirmed that the burden of proving forgery lies with the party alleging it and upheld the validity of the sale agreement, reinforcing principles of specific performance in contract law.
The court determined the bonafide status of the purchaser without notice and the necessity for the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness for specific performance.
The judgment establishes that specific performance can be granted when the plaintiff proves the execution of the contract and demonstrates readiness and willingness to perform, despite the defendant'....
The court affirmed that specific performance can be granted when the execution of the sale agreement is proven and the plaintiff demonstrates readiness and willingness to perform their contractual ob....
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.
The court ruled that specific performance requires proof of intent to sell, and failure to prove such intent negates the right to enforce the agreement against the defendant.
The court ruled that statutory rights of a bona fide purchaser prevail over equitable rights of an agreement holder in cases of specific performance, particularly in the absence of evidence proving r....
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....
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.