Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Chand Rani vs Kamal Rani on 18 December, 1992
In this context, this Court in Chand Rani v. Kamal
Rani [Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani, (1993) 1 SCC 519] , held as
under : (SCC p. 528, para 25)
“25. From an analysis of the above case law it is clear
that in the case of sale of immovable property there is
no presumption as to time being the essence of the
contract. Even if it is not of the essence of the contract
21
the court may infer that it is to be performed in a
reasonable time if the conditions are evident:
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Ardeshir H. Mama vs Flora Sassoon on 21 May, 1928
25. Before delving further into the discussion of Section 16 (c) of the Act, we
would like to trace a bit of history of the said provision. The old Specific Relief
Act of 1877 did not contain any express provision regarding the averment of
readiness and willingness as being necessary in a suit for specific performance,
but this was the law of the land. As early as 1928, Their Lordships of the Privy
Council in Ardeshir H. Mama vs Flora Sassoon 7, while taking note of the fact
that there was an absence of an express provision in Indian law regarding
readiness and willingness, held that the requirements of Indian and English law
in this matter are the same.
Aniglase Yohannan vs Ramlatha And Ors on 23 September, 2005
In Aniglase Yohannan vs Ramlatha & Ors.9, this Court held:-
N.P. Thirugnanam (D) By Lrs vs Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao & Ors on 12 July, 1995
In Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd. (supra), this Court
was dealing with a similar question with respect to a sale agreement for an
immovable property, while referring to an earlier judgment in Chand
Rani v. Kamal Rani,12 it was reiterated that in sale of immovable property there
is no presumption that time is the essence of the contract, however, the court
may infer performance in a reasonable time if the conditions are evident from
the express terms of the contract, from the nature of the property, and from the
surrounding circumstances.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Gomathinayagam Pillai And Ors vs Pallaniswami Nadar on 2 September, 1966
In Gomathinayagam Pillai & Ors. vs
Palaniswami Nadar10, this Court referred to the judgment of Their Lordships
of the Privy Council in Bank of India Limited vs Jamsetji A.H. Chinoy and
Chinoy and Company11. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced
as under:
Nanjappan vs Ramasamy & Anr on 24 February, 2015
Following the deceased
G. Venugopala Rao’s rejoinder notice, the Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1 herein)
did not pay the balance sale consideration and remained silent for 14 months,
and when the price of the property had increased substantially, she gave another
legal notice to the deceased G. Venugopala Rao’s legal heirs (including the
Appellants herein), which was followed by the suit for specific performance.
Now, the market value property has gone up manifold and it is around
Rs.1,50,000 per gadi. Therefore, directing the Appellants herein to execute the
sale deed for the original price after 20 years would undue loss to the Appellants
herein. Reliance in this regard was placed on this Court’s judgment in
Nanjappan vs Ramasamy & Anr.3