MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Defendants Lacking Absolute Rights Cannot Confer Rights for Specific Performance: AP High Court Rules on Property Sale Agreement

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment delivered on April 19, 2024, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, led by Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, addressed complex legal issues surrounding the specific performance of a property sale agreement dated October 24, 1990.

Legal Context:

This legal battle centered on an agreement to sell land rich with mango, casuarina, blackberry, and palmyrah trees, initially executed by certain members of a joint family, who were purportedly acting as managers. The plaintiffs sought enforcement of this agreement, which was contested based on the validity and enforceability under the Specific Relief Act and the Hindu Succession Act.

Facts and Issues:

The plaintiffs claimed that an agreement was made for the sale of land at Rs.1,35,000 per acre, with the stipulation that the defendants would clear the land of trees. However, not all joint family members had signed the agreement or were minors at the time, leading to questions about the legality of the agreement and the actual authority of those who signed it.

Court's Assessment:

Authority and Participation: The agreement was not signed by all co-owners and those who signed did not have full authority to sell the joint family property, undermining the enforceability of the agreement.

Contractual Obligations and Willingness: The court observed that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their readiness and willingness to complete the transaction as required, which is crucial for the specific performance to be granted.

Compliance with Legal Standards: The agreement failed to meet necessary legal standards for specific performance, particularly regarding the unanimous consent of all co-owners and adherence to the procedural norms set forth in the applicable laws.

Decision: The High Court denied the specific performance of the property sale agreement due to the defective nature of the consent and authority underpinning the agreement. Nevertheless, recognizing the partial payments made by the plaintiffs, the court ruled that they were entitled to a refund of the advance payment of Rs.2,19,000 along with interest.

Date of Decision: 19th April 2024

Nagaraju Died and Others VS A Sivaramakrishna Prasad and Others

 

Latest Legal News