Case Note & Summary
The appellant-plaintiff, Pooja Katare, through her power of attorney holder, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 16.05.2010 with respondent no.1, Keshav Yawalkar, for the sale of land at Rs.22,51,000 per acre. An earnest amount of Rs.51,000 was paid. The agreement contained a term that the suit land was reserved for a stadium and other public purposes, and the plaintiff was responsible for getting the land dereserved. The agreement provided that within two years from the release of the land from reservation, the remaining consideration would be paid. The plaintiff alleged that after the agreement, she took steps for dereservation but the defendant did not cooperate after 02.08.2010. The plaintiff's husband requested a power of attorney to expedite dereservation, but due to non-cooperation, clearance could not be obtained. Later, the plaintiff claimed that dereservation was not necessary for execution of the sale deed and sent a letter on 12.12.2012 calling upon the defendant to fix a date for registration. The defendant replied denying the agreement and stating that the plaintiff had not performed her part. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness and that the condition of dereservation was a condition precedent. The High Court, in appeal, affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the condition regarding dereservation was a condition precedent and the plaintiff's failure to fulfill it disentitled her to specific performance. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not prove readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Specific Performance - Condition Precedent - Agreement for Sale of Land Reserved for Public Purpose - The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement for sale of land which was reserved for stadium and other public purposes. The agreement stipulated that the plaintiff was responsible for ensuring dereservation of the land. The plaintiff failed to obtain dereservation and claimed that dereservation was not necessary. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the High Court held that the condition regarding dereservation was a condition precedent and the plaintiff's failure to fulfill it disentitled her to specific performance. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not prove readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance of contract when the condition precedent of dereservation of the suit land was not fulfilled.
Final Decision
The first appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the trial court dated 14.12.2015 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Condition precedent
- Dereservation of land
- Time is not of essence
- Readiness and willingness
