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 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

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