HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ
GEORGE M. MATHEWS @ GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
MUHAMMED HANEEFA RAWTHER – Respondent
JUDGMENT
C.Jayachandran, J.
1. Whether 'readiness' implies 'willingness' in the context of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ? If there is overall lack of bonafides in the conduct of the plaintiff/vendee, as discernible from the evidence on record, whether the discretion under Section 20 can be exercised in favour of the plaintiff, even if he was found to have been possessed of the necessary funds for payment of balance consideration? These are the questions which arise for consideration in the instant appeal.
2. The decree impugned in this appeal is the one in O.S.No.132/2011 of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta, which directed the defendant to specifically perform a contract for sale dated 14.10.2010 in favour of the plaintiff in the suit. The aggrieved defendant is the appellant.
3. The parties are referred to from their original status before the court below. The pleadings are summarized thus:
Ext.A1 contract for sale of the plaint schedule property, having an extent of 43.5 cents (17.61 ares), was entered into by and between the plaintiff as the vendee and the defendant as the vendor on 14.10.2010 for a sale consideration calculated at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per cent. A
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.