Category: Specific Performance

Even if the case of later payments by the respondents to the appellants is accepted, the same being at great intervals and there being no willingness shown by them to pay the remaining amount or getting the Sale Deed ascribed on necessary stamp paper and giving notice to the appellants to execute the Sale Deed, it cannot be said that in the present case, judged on the anvil of the conduct of parties, especially the appellants, time would not remain the essence of the contract – Suit for specific performance dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALAGAMMAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GANESAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Suit for specific performance – Refund of earnest money – Merely refunding the earnest money paid, after sixty years will be unreasonable as the respondent, after booking the plot, has been waiting all along as even in the litigation since 1986 – Price of the land in the area has increased manifold for the last sixty years – Appellant pays a total amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the respondent as full and final settlement of claim in the suit – Appeals disposed of.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S GREATER ASHOKA AND LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY @ APPELLANT Vs. KANTI PRASAD JAIN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and…

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54 and Section 9 – Suit for specific performance – Limitation – Article 54 of Part II of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 19637 stipulates the limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance as three years from the date fixed for performance, and in alternative when no date is fixed, three years from the date when the plaintiff has notice that performance has been refused – when no time is fixed for performance, the court will have to determine the date on which the plaintiff had notice of refusal on part of the defendant to perform the contract.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. VALLIAMMAI — Appellant Vs. K.P. MURALI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Suit for specific performance – Agreement to sell – where the sum named is an amount the payment of which may be substituted for the performance of the act at the election of the person by whom the money is to be paid or the act done, the Court may refuse to pass the decree for specific performance. In the present case, the condition specifically stipulates that in case of failure on the part of the seller to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time the buyer shall be entitled to double the amount given as an advance.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH T.D. VIVEK KUMAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RANBIR CHAUDHARY — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

HELD when specific performance of the terms of the contract has not been done, the question of time being the essence of contract does not arise – time would not be of essence in a contract wherein the obligations of one party are dependent on the fulfillment of obligations of another party.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GADDIPATI DIVIJA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PATHURI SAMRAJYAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil…

The facts of this case would amply demonstrate that the petitioner/plaintiff was not ready nor capacity to perform his part of the contract as he had no financial capacity to pay the consideration in cash as contracted and intended to bite for the time which disentitles him as time is the essence of the contract.” Thus, both readiness as well as willingness have to be established by the plaintiff on whom the burden is cast in a suit for specific performance of an agreement.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C. HARIDASAN — Appellant Vs. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA KURUP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

Held plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance in which it was specifically averred that he was ready and willing to perform the agreement dated 13.03.2007. In his deposition, the plaintiff specifically stated that he was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the agreement. He further stated that he approached the defendant in the month of June, 2007 and again in July, 2007 with the balance sale consideration. Order of trial court restored

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BASAVARAJ — Appellant Vs. PADMAVATHI AND ANOTHERR — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 8962-8963…

Refund of any earnest money – The litmus test appears to be that unless a plaintiff specifically seeks the refund of the earnest money at the time of filing of the suit or by way of amendment, no such relief can be granted to him – Prayer clause is a sine qua non for grant of decree of refund of earnest money. HELD nature of ‘earnest money’, the onus to prove that the same was ‘penal’ in nature squarely lies on the party seeking refund of the same –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DESH RAJ AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ROHTASH SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed