Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)N.P. Thirugnanam (D) By Lrs vs Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao & Ors on 12 July, 1995
8. Learned Counsel for defendants no.1 and 2 has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in N.P. Thirugnanam (D) by L.Rs v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Raoand Ors. where the aspect of discretion of the Court in respect of suits for specific performance has been discussed. It has been emphasized that the remedy for specific performance is an equitable remedy and is in the discretion of the court, which discretion requires to be exercised according to settled principles of law and not arbitrarily as adumbrated under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'). It has been emphasized that the Court is not bound to grant relief under Section 20 of the Act merely because there is a valid agreement of sale. Under Section 16(c) of the said Act, the plaintiff must plead and prove that he had performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than those terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance. For the said purpose, the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with attending circumstances have to be taken into consideration and the amount of consideration which the plaintiff had agreed to pay to the defendant was held as of necessity to be proved to be available. The readiness and willingness has to be proved right from the date of the execution till the date of decree.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
K. Majeed vs Pappa @ Madurambal And Natarajan on 17 February, 2004
9. Learned Counsel has also referred to a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in K. Majeed v. Pappa alias Madurambal and Anr. where in para-7 it has been observed that where the plaintiff has taken a stand that he was ready and willing to perform the contract and in furtherance thereto was willing to deposit the balance sale consideration but failed to deposit the same even during extension of time resulting in dismissal of the application, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had requisite money to deposit the balance sale consideration and to meet the obligation. Thus, it was held that there was no evidence to show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
1