Case Note & Summary
The case involves a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 12.08.2004 for a property in Seegehalli Village, Bengaluru. The plaintiff, Dinesh Reddy, claimed that the defendant, Punnyakat Philip Raju (since deceased, represented by legal representatives), agreed to sell the property for Rs.75 lakhs and received an advance of Rs.10 lakhs via demand draft. The defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite the plaintiff's readiness and willingness. The trial court decreed the suit, directing specific performance. The defendant appealed. The High Court examined the evidence, including the agreement (Ex.P1) and the demand draft (Ex.P2), and found that the plaintiff had proved his case. The court noted that the defendant did not produce the original agreement or any receipt, and his defense that the document was a loan transaction was not supported by evidence. The court held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part, as he had deposited the balance consideration in court and filed the suit within the stipulated period. The appeal was dismissed, and the decree for specific performance was upheld.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the decree. The court held that the plaintiff's deposit of balance consideration and filing of suit within the stipulated period demonstrated readiness and willingness. (Paras 3-10) B) Specific Relief Act - Time Not Essence - Section 20 Specific Relief Act, 1963 - In agreements for sale of immovable property, time is not ordinarily of the essence unless expressly stipulated. The court held that the agreement did not make time the essence, and the plaintiff's delay was not fatal. (Paras 11-15) C) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Adverse Inference - Section 114(g) Evidence Act, 1872 - When a party fails to produce relevant evidence in his possession, the court may draw an adverse inference. The defendant did not produce the original agreement or any receipt for the advance, leading to an inference against him. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and whether the trial court correctly decreed specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 12.08.2004.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 04.10.2012 passed in O.S.No.693/2005 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, decreeing the suit for specific performance, is confirmed.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- agreement of sale
- readiness and willingness
- time not essence
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 20 Specific Relief Act
