Back
RAJNISH KUMAR
Rama Kant – Appellant
Versus
Prema Devi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajnish Kumar, J.
1. Heard, Shri G.S. Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (here-in-after referred as C.P.C.) has been filed assailing the judgment and decree dated 10.11.1987 passed in Regular Suit No.111 of 1984 (Shiv Nayak (dead) and Others Vs. Shiv Dularey (dead) and others) by the First Additional Civil Judge, Raibareli and judgment and decree dated 27.02.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No.11 of 1991 (Shiv Dularey (Dead) and Others Vs. Shiv Nayak (Dead) and Others) by the First Additional District Judge, Raibareli.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants, while assailing the two judgments passed by the courts below, submitted that the trial court in a suit for specific performance of contract failed to frame the specific issue regarding readiness and willingness in terms of Section 16 (c) of The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (here-in-after referred as the Act of 1963). Even the lower appellate court ignored the aforesaid aspect and decided the appeal without framing points o
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was not established in this case.
A plaintiff in a specific performance suit must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations throughout, as mandated by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act....
The appellate court emphasized that specific performance requires proof of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was not adequately addressed by the trial Court.
Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract for specific performance; mere assertion is insufficient.
The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance; mere possession or improvements do not suffice.
Plaintiffs must provide clear evidence of readiness and willingness backed by fund availability to claim specific performance of a contract, as mere statements are insufficient.
The court emphasized the necessity for continuous proof of a party's readiness and willingness to perform contract obligations and that unregistered agreements impacting possession must be duly stamp....
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
