9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property, delay in filing the suit, readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform the contract, conformity of plaint averments with legal requirements, and entitlement to claim specific performance along with damages. Specific Performance of Contract: The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant for the purchase of a property. The defendant was found to have executed the contract but failed to receive the balance amount and execute the sale deed. The trial court decreed specific performance, which was challenged in the High Court. The High Court set aside the specific performance but granted compensation to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that the reasons given by the High Court were not legally sustainable, and therefore, set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's decision. Delay in Filing Suit: The High Court noted a delay in filing the suit, but the Supreme Court clarified that the delay was not significant as it was within nine months from the last notice issued. The Court emphasized that delay alone cannot be a reason to deny relief in a case of specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property. Readiness and Willingness of Plaintiff: The High Court contended that the plaintiff's averments did not demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract. However, the Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and found that the plaintiff had shown readiness and willingness by demanding the defendant to receive the balance consideration and execute the sale deed. The Court emphasized that readiness and willingness should be viewed in substance and not merely in form. Conformity of Plaint Averments: The defendant argued that the plaint averments did not conform to legal requirements. The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments and highlighted that the essence of readiness and willingness should be evident in the plaint as a whole, rather than adhering strictly to specific forms. The Court found that the plaintiff's averments sufficiently indicated readiness and willingness. Entitlement to Claim Specific Performance and Damages: The defendant contended that the plaintiff, by claiming compensation in lieu of specific performance, was disentitled to claim specific performance. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that claiming damages in addition to specific performance is permissible under the law. The plaintiff was held entitled to the main relief of specific performance. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the legal representatives of the defendant to execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff within three months. The plaintiff was also awarded costs.
|
