9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant had made out her case, it should have directed specific performance of the agreement instead ordering refund of the advance amount with interest. The reasoning given by the High Court cannot be accepted or held sustainable in the eyes of law - Appeal allowed. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4827 OF 2017, Arising out SLP (C) No. 26881 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 31-3-2017 - PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ. ORDER 1) Leave granted. 2) The only question which arises for our consideration is whether delay can be the sole ground for rejection of a plea of specific performance of contract entered into between the parties. 3) The facts of the case, in brief, are narrated hereunder:- i) The Plaintiff and the 1st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the existence of sale agreement. v) The plaintiff was always ready and willing to fulfill her part of the contract. The 1st defendant was adopting the delay tactics. Since the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, she has issued a notice to the defendants calling upon them to meet her so that the balance consideration be paid for completing the sale transaction. vi) Since the defendants did not come forward, the plaintiff filed a suit before the Addl. District and execute the sale deed in respect Sessions Judge, Coimbatore for the relief of specific performance directing the defendants to of the suit property. vii) During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died and defendant Nos. 2 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the contract and the High Court has committed a grave error in not taking into account the law laid down by this Court and that the impugned order is perverse, cryptic and passed without proper appreciation of law and is thus liable to be set aside. She further contended that even though the High Court found every issue in favour of the appellant, held that execution of document has been proved and the appellant was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, yet denied her the relief of specific performance. 6) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order of the Trial Court as well as of the High Court and contended that both the Courts after proper analysis of material available on record rightly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
