Case Note & Summary
The present first appeal is filed by the defendant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2015 passed in OS No.195/2012 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kolar, whereunder the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff has been decreed with costs. The appellant-defendant, Mr. Mahaboob Munaver, entered into an agreement of sale dated 27.06.2005 with the respondent-plaintiff, Mr. Ashwathanarayana Guptha M S (since deceased, represented by legal representatives), agreeing to sell a property for a total consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/-. An advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid, and the balance was to be paid within six months. The plaintiff alleged that he was ready and willing to perform his part but the defendant avoided execution of the sale deed. The defendant denied the agreement and contended that the plaintiff was not ready and willing. The trial court decreed the suit. The High Court framed issues regarding readiness and willingness, burden of proof, and whether time was the essence. The court analyzed the evidence, including the plaintiff's testimony and the attesting witness, and found that the plaintiff had deposited the balance amount and executed the sale deed within time. The court held that the plaintiff had proved his readiness and willingness, and time was not the essence of the contract. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the decree for specific performance.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the date of decree. The court held that the plaintiff's evidence of depositing balance sale consideration and executing sale deed within the stipulated time demonstrates readiness and willingness. (Paras 10-15) B) Contract Act, 1872 - Section 55 - Time as Essence of Contract - For immovable property, time is not ordinarily the essence of the contract unless expressly stipulated. The agreement did not make time the essence, and the plaintiff's delay was not fatal. (Paras 16-18) C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Proof of Execution of Documents - The execution of the agreement of sale was proved by examining one of the attesting witnesses, satisfying the requirement of Section 68. (Para 20) D) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Discretion of Court - The court's discretion to decree specific performance is guided by principles of equity. The plaintiff's conduct in depositing the balance amount and willingness to perform entitles him to the relief. (Paras 22-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff has proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract under the agreement of sale dated 27.06.2005 and whether the judgment and decree of the trial court decreeing the suit for specific performance is sustainable.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 30.11.2015 passed in OS No.195/2012 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, decreeing the suit for specific performance is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Burden of proof
- Agreement of sale
- Time is not essence of contract for immovable property
