Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam

High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Discretion in Property Sale Dispute: Plaintiff Failed to Prove Continued Readiness and Willingness

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Kerala, presided over by Justice Sathish Ninan, has upheld the decision of the Principal Sub Court, Alappuzha, in a contentious property sale agreement case (RFA No.392 of 2004). The court denied the specific performance of the agreement, instead favoring the return of advance sale consideration with modified interest rates.

The appellant, represented by the heirs of Khalid, had challenged the trial court’s decision, which declined the specific performance of a property sale agreement dating back to 2000. The court, in its judgment, highlighted, “the plaintiff has failed to prove his continued readiness and willingness to perform Ext.A1 agreement,” emphasizing the criticality of this aspect in contract enforcement.

Justice Ninan, in his detailed judgment, meticulously examined the evidence presented, including the bank account details of the plaintiff and the circumstances surrounding the contract’s non-fulfillment. The court observed that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate the financial capacity or the earnest intention to comply with the terms of the agreement. This lack of evidence was pivotal in the court’s decision to deny specific performance.

Furthermore, the court modified the interest rate on the advance sale consideration, stating, “Considering the banking rates of interest during the relevant period, I deem it appropriate that the plaintiff be granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of the suit and thereafter at the rate of 9% till the date of realization.” This modification reflects a balanced approach in dealing with the financial aspects of the dispute.

The High Court's decision In this case underscores the importance of the plaintiff’s obligation to demonstrate readiness and willingness in contract performance, a principle that is fundamental in specific performance suits. The ruling also highlights the discretionary power of trial courts in adjudicating complex civil matters, particularly in property disputes where the contractual intentions and capabilities of the parties involved are under scrutiny.

Date of Decision: 22nd November 2023

Khalid VS Sarala

Latest Legal News