Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.
Myneni Purnachandra Rao – Petitioner
versus
Pulipati Badrinarayana – Respondent
Second Appeal No.428 of 2012
Decided on 4.10.2023
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second appeal – Scope and ambit – Re-appreciation of entire evidence on record is impermissible unless Courts below reached to conclusions based on inadmissible evidence or without evidence – Interference is permissible only when impugned judgments are contrary to mandatory provisions applicable to questions that arose between parties. (Para 12)
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) – Agreement to sell – Suit for Specific Performance – An agreement for the sale of immovable property contemplates intendment of conveyance of title in future from one to the other – Every bargain is settled for mutual benefit of both parties to contract – Payment of consideration is the most essential term of a contract. For all these years appellant did not evince any desire to pay balance sale consideration and obtain registered sale deed – Fact that respondents stipulated for payment of interest on delayed payment is indicative of fact that they intended to expedite deal to reach its culmination as quickly as possible – When once it is demonstrated that appellant has not been ready and willing to perform his part of contract, question whether time is essence of contract or not remains for academic discussion and nothing more – Courts below are right in holding that appellant has failed to demonstrate his readiness and willingness and he was not entitled for specific performance of agreement for sale – Appeal dismissed with costs. (Paras 16, 17, 20 and 23)
Result: Second Appeal dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
This is the vendee’s appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. He filed O.S.No.112 of 2007 seeking for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 10.11.1986 with a direction to the defendants to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and for delivery of possession of the property and for costs and such other reliefs. After due trial, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by it, he preferred an appeal before the learned District Court in A.S.No.1 of 2010. After due hearing, the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal by a judgment dated 06.01.2012 dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. In pursuit of his prayer, plaintiff is now in this second appeal.
2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are natural brothers to each other and they were the defendants in the suit and respondents in this appeal.
3. On 22.06.2012 a learned Judge of this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:—
(i) Whether time is the essence of the contract and the defendants had committed default in performing their part of contract from the material evidence available and appreciated by the Courts below?
(ii) Whether the delay of 20 years in seeking the relief of specific performance entitles for equitable relief of specific performance?
4. Learned counsel on both sides submitted arguments and cited precedent.
5. The following are the facts admitted on both sides:—
(a) The property in dispute is Ac.0.81 cents of wet land in R.S.No.437/1 situate in Mulasagaram Village of Nandyal Sub-Division of Kurnool District. Originally it was owned by the plaintiff and one Cherukuru Sakkubayamma. Together they sold this property to defendants under a registered sale deed dated 30.09.1982. Thereafter defendants being owners continued to hold the title and possession over that property. Then they intended to sell it and in that process plaintiff offered to purchase the same and therefore between them an agreement for sale dated 10.11.1986 came to be executed. That agreement for sale was signed by both parties. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.2,25,000/-. On the date of agreement for sale, vendee/plaintiff/appellant paid Rs.10,000/- towards part of agreed sale consideration. That was acknowledged in the agreement for sale. The balance sale consideration remained at Rs.2,15,000/-. The agreement stipulated that the vendee/plaintiff was given time to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 31.03.1987. Vendee/plaintiff was given further time to pay Rs.1,15,000/- on or before 09.09.1987. If payments were made within those stipulated dates, it was agreed between parties, that the vendors/defendants should execute a registered sale deed in favour of vendee/plaintiff at the expenses of the plaintiff. A further stipulation indicates that in the event of vendee/plaintiff delaying his payments, he was to pay 15% interest concerning Rs.1,00,000/- and the interest component had to be computed from 31.03.1987 till 09.09.1987. It is further stipulated that in the event of delay on part of the plaintiff in making payment of that Rs.1,00,000/- as well as the other scheduled payment of Rs.1,15,000/- on or before 09.09.1987, on the entire balance sale consideration of Rs.2,25,000/- the plaintiff had to pay 18% interest and this interest component continues till the entire payment was made and registration of regular sale deed was effected.
(b) This agreement for sale is the one that fell into dispute leading to the litigation. Based on this agreement for sale plaintiff sued the defendants. While filing the suit plaintiff voluntarily deposited Rs.9,87,735/- in the trial Court and that represents the balance sale consideration along with interest calculated at the rates mentioned in the agreement for sale. The plaint was presented on 18.06.2007. Thus, concerning agreement for sale dated 10.11.1986 the suit was filed by vendee on 18.06.2007 which means on
SupremeToday
Agreement to sell – A vendee who failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of obligations is disentitled from seeking specific performance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant's failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract resulted in the denial of specific perfor....
The Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, and time can be made of the essence through express terms or circumstances.
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 plaintiffs must prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract in order to be entitled to the relief of specific performance.
(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....
The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, and the defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff lacked the financial capacity to pay the balance sale considerati....
(1) Specific performance – Ordinary rule is that specific performance should be granted – It ought to be denied only when equitable considerations point to its refusal and circumstances show that dam....
The court held that the agreement to sell was enforceable despite time not being the essence due to conditions of pending litigation and tenant eviction, affirming the plaintiff's continuous readines....
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
