IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
VIVEK RUSIA
Radheshyam Ramlal S/o Ramlal Porwal (Since Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Bheru Singh S/o Ratansingh (Deceased) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's suit for specific performance details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court proceedings and evidence introduction. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. appellant's arguments on readiness and willingness. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. discussion on substantial evidence and party conduct. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. judicial precedents on contract performance. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. defense arguments supporting dismissal of the suit. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. court observations on obligations under contract. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. on failure to prove readiness and willingness. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 9. final decision and order of the court. (Para 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK RUSIA, J.
1. The plaintiffs-appellants (legal heirs of Plaintiff Late Radheshyam S/o Ramlal Porwal) filed this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) against judgment and decree dated 05.02.2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 12-A of 1996 by the learned Additional District Judge, Khachrod, District Ujjain (M.P.) whereby the suit for specific performance of the contract has been dismissed.
The facts of the case in short are, as under:
2. Plaintiff Late R
Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha & others
Govind Prasad Chaturvedi v. Hari Dutt Shastri & another
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd. (2005) 2 SCC 217
K. Prakash v. B. R. Sampath Kumar
Laxman Tatyaba Kankate & another v. Staramati Harishchandra Dhatrak
M.L. Devender Singh v. Syed Khaja
N.P. Thirungnanam (Dead) by Legal Representatives v. Dr. R. Ragan Mohan & others
P. D’Souza v. Shondriolo Naidu
Panchanan Dhara v. Mohamatha Nath Maity
Pradeep Mohanbay v. Minguel Carlos Dias
Prakash Chandra v. B Angad Lal & others
Ritu Saxena v. D.J.S. Grover & another
S.V. Sankaralinga Nadar v. P.T.S. Ratnaswami Nadar
Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan
Smt. Indira Kaur & others v. Shri Sheo Lal Kapoor
The court affirmed that a plaintiff must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract to be entitled to specific performance of the agreement; otherwise, claims may be dismi....
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.
(1) Specific performance of agreement of sale –Alternative plea of refund of earnest amount and damage could not be bar to claiming decree for specific Performance of contract.(2) Specific performanc....
Agreement to Sell – In a suit for specific performance of agreement, it is for Plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the agreement – Where a certain amount....
Time is an essence of the contract in specific performance cases, and plaintiffs must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their obligations.
The Plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as well as the Defendant's failure to prove that the sale agreement was fabricated, were crucial in the court's decision to confirm ....
The court reaffirmed that in contracts for sale of immovable property, time is not inherently of the essence unless explicitly stated, and readiness must be demonstrated through conduct rather than m....
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.