Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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