Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm )
(i) Whether the respondent/plaintiff proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract?;
(ii) Whether the time is essence of suit agreement?;
(iii) Whether the suit for specific performance simplicitor is maintainable without prayer for declaration that termination of suit agreement was bad?;

It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the absence of declaration that termination of the suit sale agreement was bad, a prayer for specific performance simplicitor is not at all maintainable.

25. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in I.S.Sikandar (dead) by Lrs. Vs.K.Subramani and others reported in (2013) 15 SCC 27.

27. The above view was followed in another judgment in Mohinder Kaur Vs. Sant Paul Singh reported in (2019) 6 CTC 348 and I.S.Sikandar (dead) by Lrs. Vs.K.Subramani and others reported in (2013) 15 SCC 27 cited supra. In that case also, there was express notice terminating suit sale agreement. Therefore, the apex Court had held that in the absence of prayer seeking a declaration that termination of the agreement was bad, mere prayer for specific performance was not maintainable. On the other hand, in the case on hand in Ex.A4, legal notice https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm ) dated 03.02.2006, the appellant/defendant never referred about the termination of the agreement. Though in the notice, he had stated that as per the terms of the agreement, the respondent shall forfeit the deposit and he was at liberty to deal with the property, he failed to terminate the agreement in express terms as in the case of I.S.Sikandar (dead) by Lrs. Vs.K.Subramani and others and Mohinder Kaur Vs.Sant Paul Singh cited supra. Yet another fact, which goes against the appellant in this case is the telegram sent by him on the very same day, on 13.02.2006, expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. If the agreement is terminated as per the terms contained therein or as per the legal notice dated 13.02.2006 issued by the appellant, absolutely, there was no justification for him to express his readiness and willingness to perform his part of his contract in the telegram issued on the very same day. The averment in the telegram of the appellant marked as Ex.A3 would indicate that he never treated the time as essence of contract and even after expiry of the time, he was ready to perform his contract. Having issued such telegram, it is not open to the appellant to say the agreement got terminated by the notice issued under Ex.A4 on the very same day especially in the absence of any express termination in the said notice. Over and above, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/10/2025 08:51:49 pm ) legal notice issued by the respondent under Ex.A2 dated 13.02.2006 was received by appellant on 15.02.2006 under Ex.A5. In the legal notice, the respondent requested the appellant to receive balance sale consideration and executed the sale deed within two days from the legal notice issued by the respondent as Ex.A2. The appellant failed to issue any reply notice mentioning alleged termination of the suit sale agreement. Therefore, in the absence of any express termination of suit sale agreement by the appellant. This Court feels the suit for specific performance simplicitor is very well maintainable without a prayer for declaration.