Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.29 seconds)
P.Saminathan vs Defendant on 26 February, 2020 cites

N.P. Thirugnanam (D) By Lrs vs Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao & Ors on 12 July, 1995

In support of his submissions, the learned referred to and relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in N.P. Thirugnanam(dead) through Lrs v. Dr.R. Jagan Mohan Rao (Thirugnanam)(1995) 5 SCC 115, wherein the Supreme Court held that readiness and willingness of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to the grant of specific performance and Saradamani Kandappan v. S.Rajalakshmi (2011) 12 SCC 18, wherein it was held that time would be of the essence of an agreement for sale of an immovable property if so stipulated therein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 486 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Saradamani Kandappan vs S. Rajalakshmi & Ors on 4 July, 2011

In support of his submissions, the learned referred to and relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in N.P. Thirugnanam(dead) through Lrs v. Dr.R. Jagan Mohan Rao (Thirugnanam)(1995) 5 SCC 115, wherein the Supreme Court held that readiness and willingness of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to the grant of specific performance and Saradamani Kandappan v. S.Rajalakshmi (2011) 12 SCC 18, wherein it was held that time would be of the essence of an agreement for sale of an immovable property if so stipulated therein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 435 - Full Document

M/S J.P.Builders & Anr vs A.Ramadas Rao & Anr on 22 November, 2010

14. This leads to the question whether the Plaintiff established readiness and willingness. As held by the Supreme Court in J.P. Builders v. A.Ramadas Rao (2011) 1 SCC 429, readiness and willingness should be determined from the entirety of the facts and circumstances and cannot be put in a straight-jacket. In Thirugnanam, the defendant was not in breach of a prior obligation to provide vacant possession. In this case, out of a total sale consideration of Rs.1 crore, a sum of Rs.60,00,000 was admittedly paid by the Plaintiff and received by the Defendant. The balance sale consideration is payable, as per the Sale Agreement, upon being provided vacant possession. Thus, the order of performance of the reciprocal obligations, as per Section 52 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, is clear and the obligation of the Defendant to provide vacant possession precedes the obligation of the Plaintiff to pay the http://www.judis.nic.in 14 of 19 C.S.No.706 of 2016 balance sale consideration. Hence, the readiness and willingness of the Plaintiff should be decided by keeping in mind this contractual and factual context. As stated above, the Plaintiff was required to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.60 lakhs, as per the Sale Agreement, after vacant possession is obtained, whereas Rs.60 lakhs was paid prior to the Defendant obtaining vacant possession. Although no documentary evidence was produced with regard to the financial capability to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000, there is oral evidence to that effect. The delay in filing the suit was also explained in the proof affidavit of P.W.1 by stating that the Defendant agreed to provide vacant possession. On considering the facts and circumstances holistically, I conclude that the Plaintiff has established his readiness and willingness to perform the Sale Agreement. On the contrary, the Defendant has failed to perform her commitment by providing vacant possession. Therefore, I conclude that the Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance. In light of this conclusion, the Plaintiff is also entitled to injunctive relief so as to preclude the creation of third party interest. Consequently, the Defendant shall exercise best endeavours to obtain and provide vacant possession to the Plaintiff of the suit schedule property within 80 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the decree. If the Defendant is unable to do so, the Defendant shall inform the Plaintiff by the 81st day. Upon receipt of such communication, the Plaintiff shall have the option of electing part http://www.judis.nic.in 15 of 19 C.S.No.706 of 2016 performance, as per Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, i.e. without full vacant possession and, in such event, the Plaintiff shall communicate the willingness to accept part performance within 7 days of the receipt of the communication from the Defendant that vacant possession could not be obtained. In such event, the sale deed shall be executed within 90 days from the date of decree. On the other hand, if the Plaintiff refuses to accept part performance, the Plaintiff should seek appropriate legal remedies and the order of injunction would cease to operate once the advance paid by the Plaintiff is refunded with reasonable interest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 346 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1