Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
Vinod Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Late Kishan Lal Ji Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
T.Dhan Singh S/o. Late Shanker Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.
1.1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.513 of 2007, dated 30.11.2018 on the file of III Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad challenging the rejection of specific performance.
1.2. The respondents-defendants have filed Cross Objection No.37 of 2019 under Order 41 Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) challenging the very same judgment and decree in refunding the advance amount with interest.
2. Appellant is the plaintiff. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the defendants in OS No.513 of 2007.
3. During pendency of the suit, respondent No.2-defendant No.2 died and her LRs are brought on record as respondent Nos.3 to 5-defendant Nos.3 to 5.
4. During pendency of the Appeal, respondent No.3 died and his LRs are brought on record as respondent Nos.6 to 8.
5.1. Appellant-plaintiff has filed suit under Section 26 & Order 7, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) praying the Court to pass a judgment and decree in his favour against the respondents-defendants with a prayer for specific performance of Agreement of Sale, dated 13.04.2006 against the respondents-
Parties must continuously demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract to successfully claim specific performance; defendants' denial of contract validity shifts the burden of proof on....
Continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract is a condition precedent for obtaining the relief of specific performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
The plaintiff's failure to prove willingness to perform the contract led to the grant of the alternate relief of refund of the advance money.
The subsequent rise in price and the defendant's resistance were not valid grounds to deny the relief of specific performance. The trial court rightly exercised its discretion in granting the relief ....
The burden of proof lies on the party disputing the validity of a written contract, and the conduct of the parties and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness are essential for specific performance....
The plaintiff's failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract led to the dismissal of the appeal for specific performance.
Continuous proof of readiness and willingness is essential for specific performance; failure to prove financial capacity and timely action disallows enforcement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff must establish readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance.
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
