Long Unexplained Delay And Inaction Disentitles For Equitable Relief Of Specific Performance: Hon'ble Supreme Court held inPydi Ramana @ Ramulu vs. Davarasety Manmadha Rao

-




Background: The case involves a civil appeal filed by Pydi Ramana (the appellant), challenging the judgment that partially allowed a specific performance suit filed by Davarasety Manmadha Rao (the respondent).

Key Issues:

  1. Whether the specific performance of a sale agreement dated 07.06.1993 should be enforced.
  2. Whether the respondent-plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
  3. The appropriateness of the appellate court's decision to direct the respondent to pay twice the sale consideration.

Facts:

  • An agreement was made on 07.06.1993 for the sale of property measuring 1.38 acres at Rs. 705 per cent.
  • The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 2,005/- and another sum of Rs. 17,000/- on 23.06.1993.
  • The defendant allegedly delayed executing the sale deed, leading to a legal notice being issued on 30.05.1996 and a subsequent suit for specific performance or refund of the advance amount with interest filed on 09.06.1997.
  • The trial court denied specific performance but ordered a refund with interest.
  • The appellate court reversed this decision and granted specific performance.
  • The High Court in the second appeal directed the plaintiff to pay additional sale consideration (twice the amount).

Supreme Court's Analysis:

  1. Validity of Agreement and Breach:

    • The agreement was valid, but the defendant did not perform the survey, which was a precondition for determining the final sale consideration.

  2. Readiness and Willingness:

    • Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act mandates that the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
    • The plaintiff's prolonged inaction (three years) before issuing the legal notice and filing the suit indicated a lack of readiness and willingness.

  3. Delay and Conduct:

    • The plaintiff failed to take necessary steps to ensure the land survey or to demand performance from the defendant within a reasonable time.
    • The delay in issuing the legal notice and filing the suit undermined the plaintiff’s claim of readiness and willingness.

Conclusion:

  • The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
  • The appellate court and High Court erred in granting specific performance.
  • The trial court's decision to deny specific performance and order a refund with interest was reinstated.

Judgment: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court and First Appellate Court judgments. The trial court's judgment dated 19.01.2002 was restored, denying specific performance and ordering a refund with interest. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors on 25 March, 2008 Judgment Detailed Summary

-
Image
Case Overview: Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: R. V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 6191 of 2001 Parties: Petitioner: Anathula Sudhakar (Defendant in the original suit) Respondent: P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) represented by legal representatives Background: The suit was originally filed by Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy, who claimed ownership of two sites (110 sq. yards and 187 sq. yards) in Matwada, Warangal town. They alleged that the defendant interfered with their possession when they began construction on the sites in 1978, leading them to file a suit for a permanent injunction. The defendant, Anathula Sudhakar, claimed that he had purchased the entire suit property (300 sq. yards) from K.V. Damodar Rao (brother of the plaintiffs' vendor, Rukminibai) under a registered sale deed in 1977 and that the property was mutated in his name in municipal records. Trial Court and Lower Courts: Trial Court: The suit was decreed in favor of...
Read more

Before Deciding on Interim, Ensure that there is atleast a preliminary satisfaction regarding the Suit Maintainbility: HSC

-
Image
Summary of Judgment: Asma Lateef & Anr. vs. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. Citation: 2024 INSC 36 Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013 Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar Legal Issues: Whether the order dated 5th August 1991, decreeing the suit against Samiullah under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently is incapable of execution. Whether the objections under Section 47 of the CPC by the subsequent purchasers were maintainable. Background: The appellants claimed that their great-grandmother orally gifted them a certain property on 16th August 1988, which was later recorded in a memorandum before the tehsildar. The appellants filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Asad Ullah Kazmi (defendant no. 1), his son Samiullah (defendant no. 2), and a caretaker (defendant no. 3), restraining them from interfering with their possession of...
Read more