Back
PANKAJ JAIN
Kehar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Satnam Chand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Pankaj Jain, J.
Defendants are in second appeal. Defendants/appellants are the subsequent vendors aggrieved of decree of specific performance granted in favour of the plaintiffs.
2. For convenience, the parties herein after are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the defendants as the appellants and the respondents as the plaintiffs.
3. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 31st of March, 1986 pertaining to suit land described in the plaint ad-measuring 14 Kanals 16 Marlas. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell suit land in their favour on 31st of March, 1986 for a valuable consideration of Rs.30,500/-. At the time of agreement to sell, she received Rs.10,000/- as earnest money. Possession of the suit land was delivered on the spot. Parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 30th of March, 1987 on payment of balance sale consideration. However, prior to the agreed date, on 16th of October, 1986 defendant No.1 executed sale deed pertaining to the suit land in favour of defendants No.2 and 3. Plaintiffs always remained ready and willing to p
Specific performance can be enforced against subsequent purchasers if they had knowledge of the original contract.
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 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 subsequent suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell based on a different cause of action is maintainable.
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 plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract, as required by Sec. 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, influenced the Court's decision to set....
Court emphasized that once agreements are executed and earnest money paid, specific performance can be enforced unless clear evidence of coercion or duress is presented.
The court upheld the agreement to sell's execution and the plaintiff's readiness to perform the contract. Specific performance granted with enhanced consideration due to market changes reflecting the....
A party seeking specific performance must continuously prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract; failure results in dismissal of the claim.
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
