No Evidence Prevails Unless ‘Conclusive, Convincing, and Beyond Reasonable Doubt’: Calcutta High Court Modifies Assault Convictions” "Fraudulent Intentions Clear as Day": Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail in ₹40 Crore Commodity Trading Scam Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Former Minister in Money Laundering Case Mere Apology Insufficient to Negate Criminal Liability for Cyber Harassment: Madras High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Not Sufficient to Deny Bail; Long Incarceration and Completion of Investigation Warrant Bail: Kerala High Court Justice Cannot Be Denied When Plaintiff Proves Right, Title, and Interest in Property, Says Calcutta High Court Permanent Injunction Granted Against Government for Failure to Follow Mandatory Rule 3 Notice: Andhra Pradesh High Court Circumstantial Evidence Must Form an Unbroken Chain: P&H High Court Validates Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC "Right to Be Forgotten Must Prevail Over Freedom of Expression in Acquittal Cases," Rules Delhi High Court Unjust Enrichment Cannot Be the Characteristic of a Government: Kerala High Court Orders 12% Interest on Delayed Payments Vague and Omnibus Statements Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Alleging Cruelty and Forced Miscarriage State Law Governs Court Fees Refunds in Mediation Settlements, But Refund Allowed as Discretionary Relief: Supreme Court Death Was Homicidal, Not Suicidal: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Wife's Murder Case Land Compensation | Market Value Determined by the Reference Court Is Lawful and Reasonable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cal High Court Quashes Wilful Defaulter Declarations, Cites Procedural Violations and Unreliable Evidence Taxation Law | When tax liability arises solely due to retrospective amendments, waiver of interest is warranted: Punjab and Haryana High Court Civil Authorities Not Required to Be Impleaded in Bail Applications: Supreme Court Clarifies Bail Procedures for Foreign Nationals Compensation Must Address Long-Term Needs and Recovery: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Accident Victim to ₹48 Lakhs Criminal Law Cannot Be Misused for Civil Matters: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against MLA in Goa Property Dispute Minor Contradictions in Testimonies Not Sufficient to Overturn Convictions: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Kerala Political Clash Murder Case

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

 

Similar News