Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
R.Manokaran vs R.Pari
cites
Section 16 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
M/S J.P.Builders & Anr vs A.Ramadas Rao & Anr on 22 November, 2010
12. The learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that in the Judgment reported in 2010 (10) SCC 512, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Even assuming that the defendant had committed breach, if the plaintiff fails to aver in the plaint or prove that he was always ready and willing to perform the essential terms of contract which are required to be performed by him (other than the terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the plaintiff), there is a bar to specific performance in his favour. Therefore, the assumption of the respondent that readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiff is something which need not be proved, if the plaintiff is able to establish that defendant refused to execute the sale deed and thereby committed breach, is not correct. Further, in the case of M/s.J.P.Builders & Anr Vs. A.Ramadas Rao & Anr. Reported in 2011 (1) SCC 429 in para 27, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that It is settled law that even in the absence of specific plea by the opposite party, it is the mandate of the statute that plaintiff has to comply with Section 16 ( c ) of the Specific Relief Act and when there is non-compliance with this statutory mandate, the Court is not bound to grant specific performance and is left with no other alternative but to dismiss the suit. It is also clear that readiness to perform must be established throughout the relevant points of time. Readiness and willingness to perform the part of the contract has to be determined / ascertained from the conduct of the parties. Following the decision, this Court has held that a person who seek specific performance should prove that he has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract ever since its emergence. It is clear from the aforesaid facts, the appellant has not satisfied the conditions of the Specific Performance Act.
Biswanath Ghosh(Dead By Lrs.) & Ors vs Gobinda Ghosh & Ors on 14 March, 2014
15. It is useful to extract the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Biswanath Ghosh (Dead) by Legal representatives and others Vs. Gobinda Ghosh alias Gobindha Chandra Ghosh and Others reported in (2014) 11 SCC 605, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 22 and 28 as follows:
Kidar Lall Seal And Another vs Hari Lall Seal on 18 December, 1951
In Kedar Lal Seal v. Hari Lal Seal, this Court has held that the Court would be slow to throw out the claim on mere technicality of the pleading. The Court observed: (AIR p 52, para 51)
"51. I would be slow to throw out a claim on a mere technicality of pleading when the substance of the thing is there and no prejudice is caused to the other side, however clumsily or inartistically the plaint may be worded. In any event, it is always open to a court to give a plaintiff been asked for, provided that occasions no prejudice to the other side beyond what can be compensated for in costs."
Section 102 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Jayalakshmi Ammal vs Chinnasamy Gounder on 19 December, 2006
In support of his contention, the appellant has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Jayalakshmi Ammal and 8 Others Vs. Chinnasamy Gounder and another reported in 2007 (1) CTC 449. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent / defendant has specifically pleaded that the appellant / plaintiff has not returned stamp papers and green sheets and the appellant created the document Ex.B9 and filed the above suit. The appellant has relied upon the reply notice, named under Ex.A5, the contents of the notice are as follows:
1