Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |    

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

Similar News