• +91-9223281789
  • sui-generis@consultant.com

Alleged to be signed under influence of liquor – Vendor found to have executed some other sale deeds later in point of time and in favour of vendee only – Plea of defendant rightly rejected. (Smt.Ajit Kaur Vs Smt.Dalbir Kaur) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 12 (P&H)

 Co-owners – Three co-owners contracting to convey property – Vendee paying part of consideration – One of co-owners refused to execute sale deed – Other two co-owners already relinquished their rights in favour of vendee – Vendee is entitled to decree for specific performance by paying said Co-owner/Vendor his share of balance consideration. (Krishnan Vs K.S.Krishnan) AIR 2004 Kerala 155

Contract for sale does not confer title in immovable property – It does not by itself create any interest in or charge on such immovable property. (Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs Anil Panjwani) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 595 (S.C.)

Defendant having entered into agreement cannot insist on plaintiffs to produce documents such as clearance from ULC, Income Tax Department etc. not contemplated under the agreement. (Moparthi Sarojini Devi Vs Kavuru) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 559 (A.P.)  

Difference between sale and agreement to sell – Title of property remains with the vendor in case of agreement to sell and in case of sale title to the property vests with the purchaser. (B.R.Koteshwara Rao Vs G.Rameshwari Bai) AIR 2004 A.P. 34

Does not create any title nor it decides any rights in favour of a person entering into agreement to sell. (Hoshiar Singh Vs Ram Kumar & Ors.) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 186 (P&H)

Earnest money – Refund – Cannot be ordered to be refunded in instalments as earnest money is not debt within meaning of Punjab Debtors Protection Act. (Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.20.R.11, Punjab Debtor Protection At, 1936, Ss.2(6), 11-B, Interest Act, 1978, S.2(c). (Tota Singh Vs Manjit Singh) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 312 (P&H)

Earnest money – Refund – Interest – Whether to be awarded at rate contracted between parties or not is a matter of equity – Refund of earnest money with interest at the rate of 8% per annum (as against 21% p.a. stipulated in agreement) from date of suit till date of refund would serve ends of justice. (Lt.Col.K.C.Bheemaiah Vs Kakamada A.Kuttappa & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 130 (Karnataka)

Earnest money – Refund of – Such relief cannot be granted unless specifically sought for – Such relief can be sought for even at appellate stage. (Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.22(2). (Lt.Col.K.C.Bheemaiah Vs Kakamada A.Kuttappa & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 130 (Karnataka)

Execution – Proof – Agreement alleged to be result of fraud – Signatures admitted – No witness examined in whose presence his signatures were obtained – Plea of fraud cannot be accepted. (Mohini Vs Vidhyawati Rathore) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 480 (M.P.)

Execution – Proof – Discrepancy regarding time of execution of agreement to sell – Sole contradiction is not sufficient to discard the agreement when it is otherwise proved by attesting witnesses and deed writer. (Deep Singh & Ors. Vs Amrik Singh & Anr.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 560 (P&H)

However, property sold to some other person – FIR u/s 420 IPC – Civil suit for specific performance also filed – Written statement also filed – No question of harassment or embarrassment from continuing the criminal proceedings – Petition for stay of criminal proceedings dismissed. (Nand Lal Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 418 (P&H)

Immovable property – Property must be identified with certainty and price fixed based on mutuality. (M/s Mirahul Enterprises Vs Mrs.Vijaya Srivastava) AIR 2003 Delhi 15

Joint Family Property – Suit for specific performance – Suit filed against legal representatives of vendor who failed to perform contract during his lifetime – Trial Court holding that specific performance of contract is enforceable only to extent of share of deceased vendor in joint family property but refusing to decree suit even to that extent on its finding that suit property is too small to be divided further and directing refund of earnest money – Finding affirmed by first appellate Court – Warrants no interference in second appeal. (Khanderao Subbarao Nadagir Vs Hulagavva & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 491 (Karnataka)

Limitation – Three years – Such period is to be reckoned from the date fixed for performance of the contract and in case no date for such performance is fixed, then from the date the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused. (Limitation Act, 1963, Art.54). (Rajana Nagpal alias Ranjana Malik Vs Devi Ram) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 127 (H.P.) 

Minor’s share also included without permission of Court to sell the same – Specific performance of part of contract –  Specific performance allowed after excluding the share of minor on payment of proportionate consideration. (Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.12. (Balkar Singh Vs Mohabat Singh & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 475 (P&H)

Oral – Denied – Heavy burden lies upon the party who pleads such an oral agreement to establish its existence as well as its conditions with the support of clinching and admissible evidence. (Yelamati Vs Vejju) AIR 2002 A.P. 369

Oral – Plaintiff must disclose all material facts, conditions and surrounding circumstances – In instant case oral agreement not proved – Pleadings of plaintiff himself showed that conditions precedent for execution of sale deed were not complied with – Specific performance refused. (Ameer Mohammed Vs Barkat Ali) AIR 2002 Rajasthan 406

Oral – Plaintiff was tenant of vendor – Alleged that some instalments of substantial amount of sale consideration were given without insisting for a receipt – Evidence on record revealed that defendant had issued receipts to plaintiff after receiving even rent from him – It shows lack of mutual confidence between parties – Relief of specific performance denied – Order upheld. (Yelamati Vs Vejju) AIR 2002 A.P. 369

Proof – Admitted signatures of executant found to be matching with the agreement – Agreement also proved by scribe and other witnesses – One ‘Kalia’ Advocate also admitted his signatures on agreement but stated that he signed on the asking of his senior advocate – Fact that Kalia appeared as a counsel for the executants after witnessing the agreement to sell is a ground not to rely on his evidence – Finding of Courts below that agreement stands proved, upheld. (Girdhari Lal & Ors. Vs Gian Chand & Ors.) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 656 (P&H)

Property owned by defendant and his sister jointly –  Defendant misled plaintiff by representing that he was sole owner of suit property – Held, no valid agreement to sell had come into existence – Plaintiff not entitled to decree as claimed – However entitled to refund of amount paid and also a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- as damages. (Ramesh Kumar Vs Chaman Lal) AIR 2003 Delhi 202

Property owned by mother and minor children – No reference to share of minors – Permission not taken from Court to sell share of minor – Concurrent finding that agreement to sell could not be construed to have been made on behalf of minors and that it was in respect of share of mother alone – Agreement to sell cannot be held to be binding the minors in view of S.8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act – Order passing decree partially to the extent of share of mother – Not liable to be set aside. (Sarup Chand Vs Surjit Kaur) AIR 2002 P&H 54

Ready and willing – Also depend upon the question as to whether defendant did everything which was required of him to be done in terms of the agreement for sale. (P.D’Souza Vs Shondrilo Naidu) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 573 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 131 (S.C.)

Ready and willing – Defendant accepted Rs.20,000/- from plaintiff in August, 1981 and sought extension of time for registering sale deed till 31.12.1981 – Question as to whether plaintiff ready and willing to perform his part of contract on 5.12.1978 does not survive. (P.D’Souza Vs Shondrilo Naidu) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 573 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 131 (S.C.)

Ready and willing – Deposit of balance consideration amount in Court – No such direction given by Court – On failure of plaintiff to deposit adverse inference cannot be drawn. (Dalip Singh Vs Ram Nath) AIR 2002 H.P. 106

Ready and willing – Plea is available to subsequent purchaser. (M/s Ceean International Private Ltd. Vs Ashok Surana) AIR 2003 Calcutta 263

Ready and willing – Price fixed 40 lakhs but payment of 8 lakhs only – Failure to establish capacity to pay balance consideration – Vendee company declared sick under SICSP Act and was directed not to alienate any assets – Held, relief of specific performance cannot be granted in favour of plaintiff-company. (P.Purushotham Reddy Vs M/s Pratap Steels Ltd.) AIR 2003 A.P. 141

Ready and willing – Statement in Court of plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract – No cross examination of plaintiff on that aspect nor it was suggested to him that he has not possessed of funds – Concurrent finding by Courts below that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract – Cannot be interfered in second appeal. (Dalip Singh Vs Ram Nath) AIR 2002 H.P. 106

Refund of earnest money – Suit found not specifically enforceable – Court has power to order refund of earnest money – Interest – Is purely on equitable consideration and may not be awarded at the rate contracted between the parties. (Ltd. Col. K.C.Bheemaiah Vs A.Kuttappa) AIR 2004 Karnataka 224

Relief of specific – Provision of damage or compensation in the agreement itself – Not a ground to refuse specific performance. (P.D’Souza Vs Shondrilo Naidu) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 573 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 131 (S.C.)

Relief of specific performance – Agreement between Commission Agent and farmer – Agreement duly proved – Plea of defendant of obtaining thumb impression on plain paper not proved – Earnest money of Rs.2000/- paid for purchase of 24 kanals at the rate of Rs.10,000/- – High Court reversed decree of Courts below and directed refund of earnest money with reasonable interest – Decision of High Court upheld, but plaintiff allowed costs upto High Court to the extent of his success. (Manohar Lal @ Manohar Singh Vs Maya) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 531 (S.C.)

Relief of specific performance – Cannot be denied on ground that has been considerable rise in the price of land due to passage of time since agreement. (Dalip Singh Vs Ram Nath) AIR 2002 H.P. 106

Repudiation – Total consideration payable within one month from date of agreement and 18% interest payable on unpaid  amount – Defendant declaring that she is not liable to pay interest at contract rate – Amounts to repudiation of contract. (Moparthi Sarojini Devi Vs Kavuru) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 559 (A.P.)  

Right given to vendors to retain property at their will if sale deed was not executed within stipulated date – Option was exercisable by vendors at their discretion not only upto the date stipulated but also beyond that – In essence it is not agreement to sell – Such agreement cannot be the basis for decree for specific performance. (Lt. Col. K.C.Bheemaiah Vs. Kakamada A.Kuttappa & Ors.) AIR 2004 Karnataka 224

Specific performance – Alternative relief of refund of earnest money – Specific performance of contract is discretionary relief which depends upon facts of each case – If the vendor had entered into an agreement to sell, earlier in time, with some other person qua the same property, then alternative relief of refund of earnest money and liquidated damages cannot be said to be unwarranted. (Saudarshan Kumar Vs Raj Rani) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 564 (P&H) 

Specific performance – Can be enforced against subsequent purchaser – Subsequent purchaser can also be directed to pay compensation in addition to specific performance. (Rajendra Kantilal Vs Bombay Builders Co.(P) Ltd.) AIR 2002 Bombay 408

Specific performance – Relief of – Suit for specific performance filed after 1-1/4 years of death of the person who entered into agreement to sell with the allegation that deceased avoided to execute sale deed – Plaintiff did not bother to issue notice immediately when executant avoided to execute the sale deed – No documentary proof that plaintiff is  having  funds  with him to pay the balance consideration – Plaintiff cannot be considered to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – Order of refund of earnest money with simple interest @ 6% per annum passed. (Mohini Vs Vidhyawati Rathore) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 480 (M.P.)

Specific performance – Relief of – Urban property whose value increasing rapidly from year to year – Earnest money paid only a meagre amount of 1/5th of total consideration – Grant of specific performance after several years of entering agreement – Unjust. (P.Purushotham Reddy & Anr. Vs M/s.Pratap Steels Ltd.) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 339 (A.P.) 

Specific performance – Suit for – Co-purchaser – Suit filed for specific performance by one out of two purchasers with regard to the entire agreement of sale – Other purchaser had not given up his right in the suit land – Held, vendee or subsequent vendee cannot plead that co-purchaser can enforce the agreement only to the extent of his proportionate share. (Narinder Kaur Vs Nagina Singh) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 607 (P&H) 

Specific performance – Suit for – Oral agreement to sell – Day and date of such agreement not specified – Claim of plaintiff that he was put into possession without executing any document and without paying any advance also not proved – Merely because owner admitted receipt of some money but on different account, it would not shift burden of proof on him – Failure to prove existence of oral agreement – Suit rightly dismissed by trial Court. (Kumari Anandan Vs T.Balamukunda Rao) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 657 (Madras) 

Specific performance – Suit for – Purchaser in possession of property as tenant is liable to pay rent to owner – Title of property continues and vests with the seller even after execution of the agreement of sale and owner is entitled to receive profits of the property till title or ownership is lost. (Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.55(3). (Shiddappa Adiveppa Jadi Vs Ramanna) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 632 (Karnataka) 

Specific performance – Suit for – Ready and willing – Merely by getting an affidavit attested from an Oath Commissioner without getting presence marked by Sub Registrar does not prove readiness and willingness of plaintiff – Plaintiff did not serve any notice upon defendant till he filed the suit – Held, first appellate Court rightly found that plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. (Gurdial Sarup Vs Kaushalya Kapur) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 602 (P&H) 

Specific performance – Suit for – Sale deed was to be executed after partition – Order of partition made on 16.11.1970 and Sanad Taqseem prepared on 20.4.1971 and mutation sanctioned on 15.6.1971 – Limitation to file suit starts to run on 15.6.1971. (Narinder Kaur Vs Nagina Singh) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 607 (P&H) 

Specific performance – Suit for – Value of property in question was much more than what was mentioned in agreement to sell – Purchaser was in possession of property as tenant – Purchaser/tenant not paying rent to owner from date of execution of agreement – Mere agreement to sell does not confer any title on purchaser – Purchaser is not entitled to equitable relief – Decree for specific performance without considering facts and evidence on record and  without giving cogent reasons – Set aside. (Shiddappa Adiveppa Jadi Vs Ramanna) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 632 (Karnataka) 

Stamp paper purchased on 27th and agreement executed on 1st of next month – Name of purchaser and for what purpose it is purchased not mentioned – Held, all these contentions are of no merit when once the genuineness of the agreement between the parties is accepted. (Smt.Shanti Bai Vs Udai Raj) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 56 (Rajasthan)

Suit for specific performance –  Vendor received earnest money but failed to execute sale deed – Claim of vendor that transaction was in fact money lending and that he had signed on blank stamp paper and repaid amount borrowed by  him to vendee’s father – Vendor failing to produce any receipt for the same nor did he insist that agreement of sale or blank stamp appear should be returned to him – Vendee is therefore entitled to decree for refund of earnest money with interest. (Sudhakarrao Shankarrao Sarnaik Vs Bhanudas N.Deshmukh) AIR 2004 Bombay 350

Suit for specific performance – ‘Ready and willing’ – Plea of ready and willingness is not available to subsequent vendee against the previous vendee. (Baldev Singh Vs Chhota Singh) AIR 2002 P&H 47 – 2001(2) Civil Court Cases (P&H) 503

Suit for specific performance – ‘Ready and willing’ – Pleading – Act does not require any specific phraseology but only that plaintiff must aver that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – The compliance of ready and willingness has to be in spirit and substance and not in letter and form – The substance of pleadings has to be seen as a whole – Once the plaintiff has averred that he was ready and wiling to perform his part and has proved that he presenAgreement to sell – Suit for specific performance – Agreement by mortgagor with mortgagee for sale of property – Stipulation in agreement as to deduction of mortgage amount – Plaintiff ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – Defendant defaulted – Defendant did not take concrete steps to execute sale deed – Continued possession of plaintiff is a factor for not denying him decree of specific performance. (Lakshmi Amma Kamalamma Vs Ayyappan) AIR 2004 Kerala 174

Suit for specific performance – Agreement entered into to pay off debts – Evidence showing that agreement was intended to be acted upon – Specific performance can be decreed – As property was conveyed to seller after debts were cleared as such plaintiff held not entitled to claim damages for delay in execution of sale deed. (Gudurusyamala Devi Vs Attola) AIR 2002 A.P. 462

Suit for specific performance – Agreement to sell does not require registration  and can be marked in a suit for specific performance. (Registration Act, 1908, Ss.17 & 49). (Javvadi Koteswara Rao Vs Sonti Sambasiva Rao) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 452 (A.P.)

Suit for specific performance – Agreement to sell executed by old, illiterate and rustic villager – Position of such a lady is not better than a pardanashin lady – Execution of agreement by such a lady has to be examined with extra caution and all suspicious surrounding the execution shall have to be dispelled by the person alleging such execution. (Sujan Kaur Vs Chand Singh) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 254 (P&H) 

Suit for specific performance – Agreement to sell land for Rs.one lakh alleged to be of price of Rs.20 lakhs – No such plea raised in written statement – No issue framed – No evidence led that market price of the land was Rs.20 lakhs – In absence of pleading or an issue framed or evidence led, it cannot be held that agreement to sell was unconscionable. (Akbar Ali Vs Vinod Khanna & Anr.) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 330 (S.C.) : 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 566 (S.C.)

Suit for specific performance – Alternative prayer for redemption of mortgage not barred by S.29 of Specific Relief Act. (Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.29). (Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan  & Ors. Vs Umabai & Ors.) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 218 (Bombay)

Suit for specific performance – Alternative relief – Merely because plaintiff has asked for alternative relief, he cannot be refused the principal relief of specific performance – Alternative relief is to be granted if party is not found entitled to main relief. (Baldev Singh Vs Chhota Singh) AIR 2002 P&H 47 – 2001(2) Civil Court Cases (P&H) 503

Suit for specific performance – As per terms of agreement it has to be performed by a certain date – Agreement stood cancelled as it could not be performed by a specific date – Defendants informed plaintiff by a registered letter at its usual address – Letter returned unserved with endorsement that factory was under lock out – By return of letter a presumption can be drawn that the letter was despatched to the plaintiff – Plaintiff in rebuttal did not lead any evidence that postal endorsement was wrong and incorrect – Mere denial of its receipt by plaintiff not sufficient to rebut the presumption – As agreement stood cancelled, plaintiff not entitled to specific performance. (P.Purushotham Reddy & Anr. Vs M/s.Pratap Steels Ltd.) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 339 (A.P.) 

Suit for specific performance – Court would be perfectly justified in taking judicial note of phenomenal increase in prices of immovable properties. (Niwas Builders Vs Chanchalaben Gandhi) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 99 (Bombay) 

Suit for specific performance – Courts below finding that agreement to sell was in fact a money transaction in order to secure loan – Refund of advance payment allowed though not claimed as Court can always grant relief on the basis of findings recorded by it although the same has not been prayed for. (Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.7.R.7). (Sawaran Singh Vs Ajit Singh) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 522 (P&H)

Suit for specific performance – Decree of specific performance – Court is expected to take into consideration circumstances prevailing in each case, conduct of parties and respective interest under the contract. (Niwas Builders Vs Chanchalaben Gandhi) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 99 (Bombay)

Suit for specific performance – Defendant denied execution of agreement and also denied receipt of earnest money – Execution of agreement and receipt of earnest money proved – Plaintiff always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – There is absolutely no equity in favour of the defendant – If suit remained pending for about seven years then plaintiff should not suffer for the same – Decree of specific performance granted. (Kishan Lal Vs Chandro) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 91 (P&H)

Suit for specific performance – Delay – Hardship to vendor – Where vendor accepted part payments from time to time without any demur, redeemed mortgage only upon receipt of payment from vendee, he cannot be permitted thereafter to take the plea that Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in view of hardship which he would face. (P.D’Souza Vs Shondrilo Naidu) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 573 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 131 (S.C.)

Suit for specific performance – Execution of agreement and receipt of part of consideration denied – Vendor had applied for permission under S.157-A of U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and District Collector granted permission – Held, decree granting specific performance, proper. (Indra Nath Vs Smt.Kitabun) AIR 2004 Allahabad 326

Suit for specific performance – Execution of agreement proved by witnesses in whose presence defendant thumb marked agreement and received consideration – Sale deed executed by defendant in favour of persons other than plaintiff a sham document as no consideration was paid – Other persons also not bona fide purchasers as they had notice of agreement to sell executed by defendant – Plaintiff proved that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and that he had necessary funds to pay balance sale consideration and that defendant was resiling from agreement – Suit decreed – No interference. (Ramji & Ors. Vs Chokat & Ors.) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 130 (Allahabad)

Suit for specific performance – Failure of D.H. to deposit amount within time – Court can extend time – J.D. cannot insist that D.H. can claim only refund of advance and not specific performance. (Kumaresan Vs M.P.Seshadri) AIR 2002 Kerala 198

Suit for specific performance – Grant of  decree of specific performance is discretion of Court – Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so – In cases where one of the three circumstances mentioned in S.20(2) Specific Relief Act is established, no question of discretion arises. (Sargunam (D) by Lr. Vs Chidambaram & Anr.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 07 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 141 (S.C.)

Suit for specific performance – In fact it was a money transaction – Agreement was procured fraudulently but it does not mean that advance amount did not pass on to the defendant – Refund of advance money allowed. (Sawaran Singh Vs Ajit Singh) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 522 (P&H)

Suit for specific performance – Interests of justice can be better served by directing to execute the agreement deed rather than awarding some compensation for breach of the agreement. (Balan  Vs Krishnan) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 227 (Kerala) 

Suit for specific performance – Land mortgaged with Bank – Mortgage stood discharged on account of repayment of loan – Held, plaintiff is entitled to specific performance. (Indrapal Vs Sham Shankar Lal) AIR 2002 Allahabad 243

Suit for specific performance – Limitation – In a suit for permanent injunction defendants in written statement denied liability to execute sale deed – Suit for specific performance to be filed within three years from date of denial of liability – Grant of injunction in favour of one of defendants in suit for permanent injunction cannot be a excuse to extend period of limitation – Suit filed beyond three years from denial of liability is barred by limitation. (Abdulaziz Mohammad Isaq Kothiwale Vs Ismailbeg) AIR 2004 Karnataka 211

Suit for specific performance – Limitation – One of the clause in the agreement that on failure plaintiff could file suit within one week of expiry of period of agreement – Held, fixation of period as such does not make stipulation as to time as essence of contract – It only emphasise fact that plaintiff should immediately file suit. (Lakshmi Amma Kamalamma Vs Ayyappan) AIR 2004 Kerala 174

Suit for specific performance – Limitation – Specific date stipulated in agreement for payment of full consideration and registration of sale deed – Vendee making part payment after expiry of stipulated date with assurance to pay balance shortly – At the time of making part payment no specific date fixed – Limitation would commence from date of notice of refusal of specific performance by vendor and not from date stipulated in agreement – Second part of Art.54 attracted. (Dutta Seethamahalakshmamma Vs Yanamadala Balaramaiah) AIR 2003 A.P. 430

Suit for specific performance – Money not offered at the time of execution of sale deed – Merely for this reason plaintiff cannot be held to be not ready and willing to perform his part of contract when there are necessary pleadings to this effect and there is nothing on record to doubt bonafide statement of plaintiff on oath that he is ready and wiling to perform his part of the contract – Decree of specific performance granted by trial Court ordered to be restored. (Parmod Bhushan Pal Vs Bachan Singh (Dead) Through his L.Rs. & Ors.) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 122 (P&H)

Suit for specific performance – Oral agreement – A piece of paper produced on which date  and amount written in support of oral agreement – Neither oral agreement nor writing on piece of paper proved – Owner executing sale deed in favour of third party – Subsequent purchaser was anterior in point of time than oral agreement and subsequent not aware of pendency of suit at the time of execution of sale deed – He is protected by S.19 of Specific Relief Act – Plaintiff not entitled to relief of specific performance. (Rajan Vs Yunuskutty) AIR 2002 Kerala 339

Suit for specific performance – Oral agreement – Payment of 15 lakhs as part payment – No explanation why agreement was not reducing into writing – Evidence of plaintiff and his witnesses found unreliable and untrustworthy – Relief of specific performance not granted. (A.Ganapthy Vs S.Venkatesan) AIR 2002 Madras 203

Suit for specific performance – Parties agreed that contract becomes unenforceable in the event defendants fail to obtain requisite permission for the sale of property before the time specified in the contract – Though there is a provision for mutual extension of the said period, it did not materalise – Defendants failed to obtain permission within the specified time as Land Ceiling case was not disposed of by that time – No evidence to show that defendants were responsible for the delay in the disposal of the case – Held, plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance. (P.Purushotham Reddy & Anr. Vs M/s.Pratap Steels Ltd.) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 339 (A.P.) 

Suit for specific performance – Party approaching Court must come with clean hands – Agreement found suffering from artificiality – Discretionary and equitable relief of specific performance cannot be granted. (Basappa Vs Basamma) AIR 2004 Madras 390

Suit for specific performance – Plain reading of agreement does not spell out as to how much area is saleable and how much consideration would be payable accordingly – Rate per acre defined in the agreement but applicable to which area not reflected – Held, agreement is vague – Agreement not capable of being specifically enforced – Alternative relief of refund of earnest money granted. (Surjit Singh & Anr. Vs Manohar Lal & Ors.) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 162 (P&H)

Suit for specific performance – Plaint – Need not be strictly as per Forms 47, 48 of CPC – Substantial compliance is sufficient. (Rakha Singh Vs Babu Singh) AIR 2002 P&H 270

Suit for specific performance – Plaintiff in his evidence attempting to substitute entirely new agreement – Held, plaintiff is not entitled to relief of specific performance.(P.Retnaswamy Vs A.Raja and another) AIR 2002 Madras 131

Suit for specific performance – Plaintiff not approaching with clean hands – Plaintiff not entitled to equitable relief of specific performance. (P.Purushotham Reddy & Anr. Vs M/s.Pratap Steels Ltd.) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 339 (A.P.) 

Suit for specific performance – Possession – Executing Court is competent to grant delivery of possession in a case where no such relief is granted by a decree for specific performance of contract for sale. (Velayudhan Vs Chandran) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 191 (Kerala)

Suit for specific performance – Possession delivered – Entire consideration amount paid – Defendant contemplating property to someone else – Decree in favour of plaintiff is proper. (Sankaran Vs Padmanabha Iyer) AIR 2004 Madras 395

Suit for specific performance – Proof of agreement to sell – Date fixed for registration of sale deed after a gap of four years – Clause in agreement that if any of the owners die before execution of sale deed, legal representatives would be bound to execute the sale deed – Held, fixing of long period of execution of sale deed is beyond one’s comprehension – Second clause in agreement shows that the agreement was not executed on the date it bears as the owners have died within six months of the alleged agreement and plaintiff in his over zealousness has introduced such a clause. (Sadhu Singh Vs Kuldip Sharma & Ors.) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 615 (P&H)

Suit for specific performance – Property agreed to be sold by mortgagor to mortgagee – As per agreement mortgagee entitled to deduct mortgage amount and to pay balance amount – Plaintiff ready and willing to perform his part of contract – It was defendant who defaulted – Defendant did not take steps to execute sale deed – Plaintiff already in possession – Continued possession of plaintiff is a factor for not denying him decree – Held, plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance. (Lakshmi Amma Kamalamma Vs Ayyappan Kunjoonju) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 590 (Kerala)

Suit for specific performance – Property found to have encumbrances – Purchaser seeking clarification from vendor – Termination of contract by vendor – Illegal – Purchaser entitled to relief of specific performance. (Sri Brahadambal Agency Vs Ramasamy)  AIR 2002 Madras 352

Suit for specific performance – Readiness and willingness – Deficit Court fee – Can be for so many reasons – By itself not a ground to believe that plaintiff had no capacity to pay the amount of consideration – However, if defendant shows that sufficient court-fee was not paid because of the incapacity of the plaintiff, suit can be dismissed. (Bolisetti Venkateswara Rao Vs Nadakuditi Venkateswara Rao) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 36 (A.P.)  

Suit for specific performance – Readiness and willingness – Deficit Court fee – Payment of deficit Court fee can be for numerous reasons – By itself not a ground to believe that plaintiff had no capacity to pay the amount of consideration. (Bolisetti Venkateswara Rao Vs Nadakuditi Venkateswara Rao) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 36 (A.P.) 

Suit for specific performance – Readiness and willingness – Must be continuous from the date of agreement till the date of decree. (Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.16(c). (Bolisetti Venkateswara Rao Vs Nadakuditi Venkateswara Rao) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 36 (A.P.) 

Suit for specific performance – Reading and willing – Failure to plead that he had money in the Bank and that he had withdrawn money from Bank – Is immaterial – These are matters of evidence and these are not matters to be pleaded. (Rakha Singh Vs Babu Singh) AIR 2002 P&H 270

Suit for specific performance – Ready and willing – Averment and proof – Entire sale consideration amount paid and possession delivered – Only legal formalities of registering sale deed was left to be done at future date – Held, when there are no such existing liabilities or obligations, the need to aver and prove readiness and willingness does not arise. (Mallappa Vs Srinivasa Rao) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 602 (Karnataka) 

Suit for specific performance – Ready and willing – No evidence on record about financial capacity and position to pay balance sale consideration – Plaintiff held not entitled to relief of specific performance. (P.Purushotham Reddy & Anr. Vs M/s.Pratap Steels Ltd.) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 339 (A.P.) 

Suit for specific performance – Ready and willing – Plaintiff in a suit for specific performance not only must raise a plea that he had all along been and even on the date of filing of suit was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but also prove the same – However, even when exact words in letter and spirit are not used but readiness and willingness can be culled out from reading all the averments in the plaint coupled with the materials brought on record, to the said effect, the statutory requirement of S.16(c) of Specific Relief Act can be held to be complied with. (Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.16(c). (Manjunath Anandappa Urf.Shivappa Hanasi Vs Tammanasa & Ors.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 520 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 552 (S.C.) 

Suit for specific performance – Ready and willing – Plaintiff to plead and prove – Same not dependent of defendant’s defence. (Ameer Mohammed Vs Barkat Ali) AIR 2002 Rajasthan 406

Suit for specific performance – Ready and willing – Pleading and proof – It is not necessary for the plaintiff to plead or prove that he had tendered the money to defendant on any particular day or had demanded transfer of property by a registered sale deed. (Iqbal Singh & Anr. Vs Gurdev Kumar & Anr.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 415 (P&H)

Suit for specific performance – Ready and willing – Pleading that plaintiff was “ever ready and willing to execute the sale-deed in his favour after making a payment of Rs.200/-” – Amounts to compliance of mandatory provision of S.16(c) Specific Relief Act. (Rambhau Jagoji Garde Vs Shantabai) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 275 (Bombay)

Suit for specific performance – Ready and willing – Proof – Version of the vendee about his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement cannot be disbelieved particualry when vendor even denied the execution of the agreement and receipt of earnest money, which is duly proved by vendee. (Gurbachan Singh & Anr. Vs Gurmit Singh) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 597 (P&H) 

Suit for specific performance – Ready and willing – Remaining present in the office of Sub Registrar for execution of deed on the day fixed for execution and registration of sale deed proves readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. (Iqbal Singh & Anr. Vs Gurdev Kumar & Anr.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 415 (P&H)

Suit for specific performance – Ready and willing – Single sentence in plaint read thus, “The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract” – Except this nothing said how plaintiff had performed the obligation or he was always ready and willing – Plaintiff cannot be said to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. (Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.16(c)).(M.Balasubramaniam Vs Gopalakrishna Odayar & Anr.) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 272 (Madras)

Suit for specific performance – Relief of specific performance – Clause in agreement that if vendor does not execute sale deed within stipulated date then vendee can get registration of sale deed through Court or receive double the amount – Held, the stipulation in the agreement cannot be taken to mean that vendee has no right to get the specific performance of the agreement by insisting for the execution of the sale deed – Contention of vendor that vendee is entitled to receive double the amount only, repelled. (Jangir Singh Vs Hari Singh) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 165 (P&H)

Suit for specific performance – Relief of specific performance – Delay in deciding suit – Held, once execution of valid agreement, ready and willingness of the vendee is proved and the subsequent vendee is not bonafide purchaser for consideration without notice and that vendor proved to have taken false pleas, Court will not refuse relief of specific performance. (Gurbachan Singh & Anr. Vs Gurmit Singh) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 597 (P&H)

Suit for specific performance – Relief of specific performance – Delay of 19 years due to inaction on part of vendor – Vendor cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own inaction – Relief of specific performance granted inspite of the fact that there is increase in prices. (Ranjana Nagpal alias Ranjana Malik Vs Devi Ram) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 93 (H.P.) 

Suit for specific performance – Relief of specific performance – Discretion of Court – To be based on sound and reasonable judicial principles and not to be arbitrary. (Ameer Mohammed Vs Barkat Ali) AIR 2002 Rajasthan 406

Suit for specific performance – Relief of specific performance – Discretion of Court to grant relief of specific performance is not arbitrary and it is required to be exercised in a reasonable and sound manner guided by judicial principles – While exercising the discretion, Court is required to meticulously consider all the facts and circumstances of the case – Court should take care to see that it is not used as an instrument of oppression to have an unfair advantage to the plaintiff. (P.Purushotham Reddy & Anr. Vs M/s.Pratap Steels Ltd.) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 339 (A.P.) 

Suit for specific performance – Relief of specific performance – Grant of relief of specific performance is an equitable relief – Discretion to grant such relief is to be exercised only on the strength of sound judicial principles and not in an arbitrary fashion – Conduct of parties has to be taken into consideration – Plaintiff always ready and wiling to perform his part of the contract – Consideration paid – Defendant failed to give reply to legal notices issued – No interfere called for in grant of relief of specific performance. (Sughra Bee Vs Kareez Fatima Qureshi) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 685 (A.P.)

Suit for specific performance – Relief of specific performance – Grant of relief of specific performance is the discretion of Court which is guided by sound and reasonable principles – Plaintiff not getting any undue advantage, defendant not put to undue hardship which he did not foresee at the time of agreement – Sale price admitted by defendant to be reasonable – Decree of specific performance upheld. (Anup Krishna Kaul Vs Jagdish Swaroop Agarwal & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 707 (Rajasthan)

Suit for specific performance – Relief of specific performance – Gross default on part of plaintiff to perform his part of contract – Relief of specific performance cannot be granted – Specific performance is a remedy that is to be granted to a party who is vigilant in the matter of performance of his own part.  (Usman Koya Vs Santha) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 59 (Kerala) 

Suit for specific performance – Relief of specific performance cannot be denied on ground of unexplained delay in filing suit without framing specific issue and finding thereon as to whether there has been unexplained delay on the part of plaintiff in taking recourse to law in filing suit, though suit is filed within prescribed period of limitation. (Ram Niwas Gupta Vs Mumtaz Hasan) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 450 (S.C.) 

Suit for specific performance – Rise in prices – Delay in the performance of contract not attributable to plaintiff – Specific performance of agreement cannot be denied to plaintiff merely on the ground that there has been considerable rise in prices of the real estate during the pendency of litigation. (Rajana Nagpal alias Ranjana Malik Vs Devi Ram) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 127 (H.P.) 

Suit for specific performance – Stipulation in agreement that vendee could file suit within one week from date of expiry of period of agreement – It cannot be characterised as a clause which would disentitle vendee to file suit forever – Fixation of period as such does not make stipulation as to time an essence of contract – It only emphasise fact that plaintiff should immediately file suit. (Lakshmi Amma Kamalamma Vs Ayyappan Kunjoonju) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 590 (Kerala)

Suit for specific performance – Subsequent vendee – Plaintiff ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – In a collusive suit by way of compromise decree subsequent vendee obtained sale deed in his favour – Agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff was prior in time – Plaintiff had inserted advertisement in newspaper that he is the purchaser of the property in dispute – Plaintiff ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – Plaintiff had purchased the stamp paper – These fact show that there is not much equity left in favour of subsequent vendee – Decree of specific performance granted in favour of plaintiff – However, plaintiff to take appropriate proceedings for eviction of subsequent vendee and take possession of suit premises in accordance with law. (Devalsab (D) by Lrs. Vs Ibrahimsab F.Karajagi & Anr.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 651 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 177 (S.C.)

Suit for specific performance – Subsequent vendee – Sale deed was to be executed by 21.8.1990 – Sale of land to third party before the stipulated date of execution of sale deed – Filing of suit for injunction restraining vendor from executing sale deed before 21.8.1990 in favour of third party would have been of no meaning, because vendee would have got cause of action for suit for specific performance only after 21.8.1990. (Baldev Singh Vs Chhota Singh) AIR 2002 P&H 47 – 2001(2) Civil Court Cases (P&H) 503

Suit for specific performance – Subsequent vendees – Decree for refund of earnest money with interest allowed – Subsequent vendees constructed a house over the land in dispute – Not a ground to deny relief to plaintiff if house is constructed during pendency of suit – Finding that subsequent vendees are bonafide purchasers for value without knowledge of previous agreement given without pleading and issue – Sale to subsequent vendees made even within period available to plaintiff for specific performance – Plaintiff doing his best to perform his part of the contract – Defendant admitting that he apprised subsequent vendees of her prior agreement with plaintiff – Suit by plaintiff within one month from date of refusal on part of defendant – Decree of Courts below set aside and plaintiff’s suit for specific performance decreed. (Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.19(b). (Deendayal Vs Smt.Harjot Kanwar) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 567 (Rajasthan) 

Suit for specific performance – Subsequent vendees constructing a house during pendency of suit – Deserves to be ignored while considering relief to the plaintiff – Rights of parties are to be considered as they existed on the date when the suit was filed. (Deendayal Vs Smt.Harjot Kanwar) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 567 (Rajasthan) 

Suit for specific performance – Substantial amount of the agreement paid to vendor and vendor continued to be in possession – Extension of time duly proved by evidence of plaintiff and deed writer – Plaintiff ready and willing to perform his part of the contract also duly proved – Mere rise in prices due to pendency of litigation is not a ground to deny relief of specific performance – Decree of specific performance rightly granted by first appellate Court. (Des Raj Vs Bhim & Anr.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 551 (P&H)

Suit for specific performance – Suit filed after six years of agreement to sell – No material to prove that plaintiff asked for execution of sale deed – Held, plaintiff is not entitled to discretionary relief of specific performance. (Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.20). (Manjunath Vs Tammanasa) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 552 (S.C.)

Suit for specific performance – Suit instituted within period of limitation – Ingredients required to be made out in a suit for specific performance established – Delay in filing suit, though suit filed within period of limitation, is not a ground to non suit the plaintiff. (Rambhau Jagoji Garde Vs Shantabai) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 275 (Bombay) 

Suit for specific performance – Time is not essence of contract unless specifically provided – Mutation in favour of vendor sanctioned but notice thereof not given to vendee though required under agreement – Vendor also not calling upon vendee to get sale deed executed – Conduct of vendor shows that according to him time was not essence of the contract. (Ranjana Nagpal alias Ranjana Malik Vs Devi Ram) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 93 (H.P.) 

Suit for specific performance – Uncertainty in agreement of sale alleged – Terms and conditions agreed between parties not uncertain – Actual extent could not  be given because of happening of expected road widening – Agreement cannot be said to be unenforceable. (Contract Act, 1872, S.29). (Sughra Bee Vs Kareez Fatima Qureshi) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 685 (A.P.)

Suit for specific performance – Validity and legality of agreement – Can be questioned by subsequent purchaser. (P.Retnaswamy Vs A.Raja and another) AIR 2002 Madras 131

Suit for specific performance – Value of property much more than that mention in agreement – Plaintiff in possession of property as tenant – From date of execution of agreement tenant not paying rent – Mere agreement to sell does not confer any title on purchaser – Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief – Decree of specific performance set aside. (Shiddappa Vs Ramanna) AIR 2002 Karnataka 416

Suit for specific performance – Vendor had option to retain property by returning with interest, advance received within one year from date of execution of agreement – Such clause in agreement confers on vendor right not to part with property and to terminate agreement at his option – Offer to sell is not unconditional and absolute – As time stipulated in agreement is not essence of contract, option to terminate agreement can be exercised even after expiry of time stipulated – Contract which is in its nature revocable cannot be enforced and suit for its enforcement is not maintainable. (Lt.Col.K.C.Bheemaiah Vs Kakamada A.Kuttappa & Ors.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 130 (Karnataka)

Suit for specific performance – Vendor received an advance of Rs.56,000/- out of consideration amount of Rs.66,000/- and thereafter vendor refused to perform the agreement – Held, trail Court rightly decreed the suit granting a decree of specific performance. (Smt.Shanti Bai Vs Udai Raj) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 56 (Rajasthan)

Suit for specific performance and compensation – Jurisdiction – When suit is filed not only for specific performance but also for alternative relief of compensation then suit can be filed at the place where defendant resides and carries on business, or personally works for gain. (Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.16). (Karan Mahendru & Ors. Vs M/s.Vatika Plantations (P) Ltd.) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 606 (Delhi)

Suit for specific performance by vendor –  Vendor not appearing in witness box – Adverse inference that case set up by vendor is not true has to be drawn – Husband of vendor appeared as defence witness as her attorney cannot be treated as having appeared in capacity as defendant. (Ranjana Nagpal Vs Devi Ram) AIR 2002 H.P. 166

Suit for specific performance in forma pauperis – Balance amount yet to be paid – Held, suit for specific performance is not maintainable. (Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.16(c). (Bolisetti Venkateswara Rao Vs Nadakuditi Venkateswara Rao) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 36 (A.P.) 

Time the essence of contract – It does not depend only upon express stipulation made by the parties, but it also depends upon the intention of the parties – Intention can be ascertained from (i) the express words used in the contract; (ii) the nature of the property which forms the subject matter of the contract; (iii) the nature of the contract; and (iv) the surrounding circumstances. (Smt.Swarnam Ramachandran Vs Aravacode Chakungal Jayapalan) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 521 (S.C.) : 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 703 (S.C.)

Time the essence of contract – Onus to plead and prove that time was the essence of the contract is on the person alleging it – In case where notice is given making time of the essence, it is duty of Court to examine the real intention of the party giving such notice by looking at the facts and circumstances of each case – A vendor has no right to make time of the essence, unless he is ready and willing to proceed to completion and secondly when the vendor purports to make time of the essence, the purchaser must be guilty of such gross default as to entitle the vendor to rescind the contract. (Smt.Swarnam Ramachandran Vs Aravacode Chakungal Jayapalan) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 521 (S.C.) : 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 703 (S.C.)

Transaction entered into with intention to defeat statutory provisions – Court will not enforce such an agreement even if it is true and valid. (B.R.Koteshwara Rao Vs G.Rameshwari Bai) AIR 2004 A.P. 34

Vendee not approaching Court with clean hands – Specific performance refused. (B.R.Koteshwara Rao Vs G.Rameshwari Bai) AIR 2004 A.P. 34

Vendee not approaching Court with clean hands and taking false pleas – Not entitled to equitable relief. (P.Purushotham Reddy Vs M/s Pratap Steels Ltd.) AIR 2003 A.P. 141

Vendor had option of putting end to entire transaction by paying to vendee amount mentioned in agreement as substitute for performance of agreement or sale of property – Dismissal of suit for specific performance – Proper. (Lt. Col.K.C.Bheemaiah Vs A.Kuttappa) AIR 2004 Karnataka 224

With tenant – In absence of a clause in the agreement that tenancy will come to an end and tenant will not be liable to pay rent thereafter there is no question of any surrender of tenancy, either expressly or impliedly – Tenant will still be liable to pay rent and liable to ejectment for non payment of rent. (Harkaran Singh & Ors. Vs Financial Commissioner Haryana) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 622 (P&H)