ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.
Dudala Sarojinamma [died] and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Vannepenta Ramanamma
and Anr. – Respondents
Appeal Suit No.8 of 2011
Decided on 4.7.2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 damages would constitute adequate relief.
(2) Specific performance – When trial Court exercises its discretion in one way or another after appreciating entire evidence and materials on record, appellate Court should not interfere unless it is established that discretion has been exercised perversely, arbitrarily or against judicial principles.
(3) Specific performance – Simply because, plaintiff has claimed alternative relief, it cannot be held that plaintiff is not entitled to primary relief of specific performance.

Headnote:

(A) Specific performance of agreement – Time is essence of contract – It is agreed between parties that payment to be made on or before 01.06.2007, but not only before 01.06.2007 – It cannot be concluded that failure to make payment within such time to be constituted a breach of contract as transaction relates to immovable property and it will normally be presumed that time is not essence of contract – Terms of agreement do not show reason for sale and reason for stipulating that time for payment to be essence of contract – Agreement does not show that there is urgent need for money within time – Words used in agreement do not show intention of parties to make time essence of contract with reference to payment – Terms of agreement do not show in express terms that time is essence of contract. [Para 23, 24]

(B) Specific Relief Act ,1963 – Sections 16 (C), 20 – Specific performance of agreement – Readiness and willingness –Defendants assert that plaintiff lacks financial capacity to pay balance sale consideration amount – They have failed to elucidate why they entered into agreement with plaintiff, if she indeed lacked financial capacity – After thorough examination of documents presented by plaintiff, this Court views that plaintiff has successfully demonstrated that she possesses sufficient funds to fulfill balance sale consideration – There is no stipulation in agreement that failure to pay balance sale consideration on specified date would result in agreement being cancelled – Mere non-deposit of balance sale consideration amount, cannot be aground to hold that plaintiff is not ready and willing to perform her part of contract. [Paras 32, 35, 37, 39, 46]

(C) Specific performance of agreement – Grant of – Barred by alternative relief – Simply because, plaintiff has claimed alternative relief, it cannot be held that plaintiff is not entitled to primary relief of specific performance – Grant of alternative relief will arise if plaintiff’s claim for specific Performance is refused – When plaintiff asks for alternative relief, there is no legal presumption or assumption that he gives up primary relief of specific Performance of contract – Trial Court, on proper appreciation of evidence on record, has come to correct conclusion regarding execution of sale agreement by defendant. [Para 48, 49]

(D) Specific Relief Act,1963 – Section 20 (2) – Specific performance – Grant of – 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 damages would constitute adequate relief – Case does not fall under any of clauses specified in section 20(2). [Paras 51, 52]

(E) Specific Relief Act,1963 – Sections 16 (C), 20 – Specific performance – Grant of – Power of Appellate Court –Party is not entitled to get decree for specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so – Once an agreement to sell is legal and validly proved and further requirements for getting such decree are established, Court has to exercise its discretion to grant relief for specific performance - No illegality or arbitrariness in impugned Judgment – Judge ought to have granted decree for specific performance, directing plaintiff to pay balance sale consideration amount with interest thereon at 12% per annum. [Paras 53, 54, 55, 57]

Result: Appeal partly allowed.