Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta
Tej Singh – Appellant
Versus
Trilok Chand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Nidhi Gupta, J.
The defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit for possession by way of specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 23.11.2005 filed by the plaintiff/ respondent herein, has been decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.04.2012 holding the plaintiff entitled to money decree for return of earnest money of Rs. 8 lacs from the defendant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of suit till the realization of the amount. The Civil Appeal No. 66 dated 25.05.2012 filed by the defendant against the said judgment and decree dated 25.04.2012 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 26.04.2013; and the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff were allowed with costs decreeing the suit of the plaintiff; and the defendant was directed to clear the mortgage with the Syndicate Bank, Seekri, within 15 days of the passing of the said judgment and thereafter, he shall be liable to get the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff within 30 days thereof on payment of balance sale consider
The obligation to clear a mortgage lies with the seller, and the buyer's readiness to perform arises only after the seller fulfills this condition.
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations; failure to do so bars relief.
Plaintiff's failure to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract negates entitlement to specific performance under Specific Relief Act.
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....
The plaintiff's failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract led to the dismissal of the appeal for specific performance.
Time is of the essence of a contract if the parties have agreed that it is or if the circumstances of the case show that it is.
The plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract within the stipulated time precluded him from obtaining the relief of specific performance.
Proof of continuous readiness and willingness is essential for specific performance; failure to demonstrate such readiness undermines entitlement to equitable relief.
(1) Suit for Specific Performance – Plaintiff must establish that he was ready and willing to perform contract – In this regard, conduct of plaintiff must be consistent.(2) Generally, time is not of ....
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
