Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

conduct of the Defendant resisting the execution of the sale deed is quite incorrect- Upholds Specific Performance: Andhra High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, presided over by Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao, upheld the trial court's decision in the case of Bogi Rajeswari vs Chintala Srinivasa Kumar [APPEAL SUIT NO. 1134 OF 2016], affirming the specific performance of a sale agreement for immovable property.

The High Court's decision focused on the authenticity of the sale agreement dated May 25, 2009, and the readiness and willingness of the parties to perform their contractual obligations, as mandated under the relevant sections of the Indian Contract Act and the Specific Relief Act.

The appeal was filed by Bogi Rajeswari, challenging the trial court's decree that directed her to execute a sale deed in favor of Chintala Srinivasa Kumar for a property in question. The appellant contested the authenticity of the sale agreement, while the respondent maintained his position on the validity of the agreement and his readiness to perform the contract.

Justice Rao, in his observation, stated, "The conduct of the Defendant resisting the execution of the sale deed is quite incorrect." The Court thoroughly examined the evidence, including the testimonies of the parties and witnesses, and the documents presented. It was concluded that the sale agreement (Ex.A.1) was valid and the appellant had contractual obligations to fulfill.

The Court applied principles from Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 16(3) of the Indian Contract Act, Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, and Sections 16(c) and 20 of the Specific Relief Act. It was emphasized that readiness and willingness are crucial factors in specific performance suits.

The Court modified the trial court's decree, directing the respondent to deposit the balance sale consideration with interest. Upon such deposit, the appellant is to execute the sale deed in favor of the respondent. If the appellant fails, the court is authorized to execute the deed. The Court affirmed that the parties would bear their own costs.

Date of Decision : February 8, 2024.

Bogi Rajeswari vs Chintala Srinivasa Kumar

 

Latest Legal News