Back
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Anil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Rajiv Chopra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Tribhuvandahiya, J. - This is defendant's second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below.
2. The pleaded facts of the case are, the respondent No.1/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 24.11.2000 with regard to 3 marla land/suit land. The agreement was executed by respondent/defendant No.2 being General Power of Attorney (GPA) of the appellant/defendant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant No.1') for a sale consideration of 50,000. The plaintiff paid earnest money of 48,000 to defendant No.2 in presence of marginal witnesses. The date for execution and registration of sale deed was fixed as 04.11.2002, i.e., after about two years of execution of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff also claimed that at the time of the execution of the agreement, possession of the suit land was handed over to him. On the date fixed for execution of sale deed, the plaintiff was present with the balance sale consideration but the defendant did not turn up, which led to filing of the suit for specific performance, and in the alternative, relief of recovery of 96,000, i.e
The cause of action of the earlier suit for permanent injunction has to furnish the cause to institute the subsequent suit for specific performance also, to hold that the latter is barred under Order....
The subsequent suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell based on a different cause of action is maintainable.
The maintainability of a suit for specific performance is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC if a plaintiff omits to claim it in an earlier suit concerning the same cause of action.
The plea of bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC prohibits a second suit for specific performance if based on the same cause of action previously omitted, and the suit is also barred by limitation under Art....
The court ruled that a suit for specific performance was not barred by Order 2, Rule 2 CPC as the appellants were permitted to withdraw a prior suit and file a new one.
The court ruled that a plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to execute a sale agreement, and failure to do so, along with undue hardship to defendants, can preclude specific performance.
![C.M. Divakaran [Died] S/o Madhavan vs K.S. Balan S/o Sreedharan - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2716](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Kerala_1.png)
The court held that specific performance is a discretionary relief and denied it due to the plaintiff's delay and lack of demonstrated readiness to perform the contract, resulting in inequity to the ....
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
