SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Telangana) 85

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J.
Mohammed Sajid – Appellant
Versus
Mohammed Naimuddin – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.410 of 2020
Decided on : 04-03-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : B. NALIN KUMAR
For the Respondent: MIRZA NISAR AHMED BAIG

The plaintiff must unconditionally deposit the balance sale consideration, and seeking extension of time must align with the conditions in the sale agreement.

Headnote:

Section 148 - Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale - C.P.C - [Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act 1963, Mrs.A.Kanthamani v. Mrs.Nasreen Ahmed, AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 1236, SARADAMANI KANDAPPAN vs. S.RAJALAKSHMI AND OTHERS, (2011) 12 SCC AT PAGE No.18, NANJAPPAN vs. RAMASAMY AND ANOTHER, (2015)14 SCC AT PAGE No.341, RAVI SETIA vs. MADAN ALAL AND OTHERS, 2019 0 AIR(SC) AT PAGE No.4791] - The court discussed the principles of readiness and willingness in specific performance cases, the essential terms of the contract to be performed by the plaintiff, and the conditions for extending time to deposit the balance sale consideration. The court emphasized the need for unconditional deposit of the balance sale consideration and the absence of specific conditions in the sale agreement for seeking extension of time.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, seeking an extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration. The defendant opposed, citing escalation in property value and lack of bonafides in the plaintiff's conduct.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application, holding that seeking time to deposit the balance sale consideration till survey of land and mutation in the defendant's name was not maintainable, as there was no such condition in the sale agreement. The court emphasized the plaintiff's failure to unconditionally deposit the balance sale consideration.

Issues: The issues involved the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract, the absence of specific conditions in the sale agreement for seeking extension of time, and the defendant's opposition based on escalation in property value and lack of bonafides in the plaintiff's conduct.

Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform essential contract terms, and seeking extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration must be unconditional, without specific conditions in the sale agreement.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the trial Court was directed to expedite the disposal of the original suit within nine months.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff assailing the orders dated 26.07.2019 in I.A.No.302 of 2019 in O.S.No.131 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court –cum- VII Additional District Judge, Sangareddy.

2. This application in I.A.No.302 of 2019 is filed under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, C.P.C) to extend time to deposit the balance sale consideration to the credit of the suit as per the orders dated 31.08.2017 in I.A.No.628 of 2017 till the survey of land and mutation of the suit land in the name of respondent/defendant takes place.

3. Heard on both sides.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the original suit.

5. The plaintiff has filed the original suit for specific performance of suit agreement of sale dated 06.06.2016 alleging that he has already paid an amount of Rs.21,50,000/- and that he is willing to pay the balance sale consideration out of Rs.76,23,000/-, but the defendant has refused to execute the registered sale deed. Finally on 19.08.2016, the plaintiff has approached the defendant, but in vain.

6. This application under Section 148 of C.P.C. is filed along with supporting affidavit stating that the defendant has approached the Court with an application in I.A.No.708 of 2018 under Order XII Rule 6 of C.P.C. to dismiss the suit as the plaintiff failed to deposit the balance sale consideration, but failed to deposit the same.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff seeks to submit that the plaintiff is willing to perform his part of contract, but due to financial constraints, he could not deposit the balance sale consideration and that time is not essence of the contract in respect of the immovable properties. As the defendant has failed to execute the sale deed, he has filed the original suit for specific performance of agreement of sale and now, he has collected the amount and willing to deposit the same.

8. Learned counsel for the defendant seeks to submit that there are no bonafides in the conduct of the plaintiff. The agreement of sale is dated 06.06.2016. Due to passage of time, there is escalation in the value of the property and the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of suit agreement of sale and he is also not entitled for deposit of the balance sale consideration.

9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied on the principles laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs.A.Kanthamani v. Mrs.Nasreen Ahmed, AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 1236.

10. Whereas, the learned counsel for the defendant relied on the principles laid in the following decisions:-

(i) SARADAMANI KANDAPPAN vs. S.RAJALAKSHMI AND OTHERS, (2011) 12 SCC AT PAGE No.18

(ii) NANJAPPAN vs. RAMASAMY AND ANOTHER, (2015)14 SCC AT PAGE No.341

(iii) RAVI SETIA vs. MADAN ALAL AND OTHERS, 2019 0 AIR(SC) AT PAGE No.4791

11. I have carefully perused the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant. The original suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale. The plaintiff has already paid an amount of Rs.21,50,000/-, but he has failed to deposit the balance sale consideration before the Court either at the time of filing the suit or subsequently having obtained permission of the Court for extension of time, finally filed a memo dated 25.04.2019. When the other side has opposed for granting permission, filed present application.

12. The trial Court looking into the conduct of the plaintiff and also taking into consideration of the fact that the present application is only filed by the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration till survey of suit land and mutation of the land in the name of the defendant held that there is no such condition in sale agreement and without there being any such condition in the sale agreement dated 06.06.2016, seeking time to deposit the balance sale consideration till surve

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top