Case Note & Summary
The appellant, V.P. Venkatesh, filed a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 8.6.2009 passed in O.S.No.15058/2003 by the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore, dismissing his suit for specific performance of contract. The appellant was the plaintiff in the trial court, claiming that the respondent, G. Padmavathi, was the absolute owner of a property bearing No.10/6, 6th Main, Magadi Road Chord Road, Corporation Division No.29, Govindarajanagar, Bangalore. He alleged that the respondent needed money and offered to sell the property, and an agreement of sale was executed on 12.1.2000 for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-. The appellant claimed to have paid Rs.4,00,000/- as advance on the date of the agreement, with the balance of Rs.50,000/- to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed within three months. The appellant stated that he was ready with the balance amount, but the respondent did not complete the transaction. He issued a notice dated 8.5.2000, which the respondent refused. The appellant further claimed that the respondent requested him to wait for six months, and later again, and he waited until December 2002. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellant appealed. The High Court heard the counsel for both sides. The court noted that the agreement fixed three months for execution, i.e., by 12.4.2000. The suit was filed in 2003, beyond the three-year limitation period under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellant failed to prove any extension of time or that he was ready and willing to perform his part. The court held that the appellant did not adduce sufficient evidence to show readiness and willingness, and the suit was barred by limitation. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that he was ready with the balance consideration and that the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation. (Paras 2-6) B) Limitation - Suit for Specific Performance - Article 54 Limitation Act, 1963 - The period of limitation for a suit for specific performance is three years from the date fixed for performance, or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. The court found that the agreement fixed three months for execution, and the suit filed in 2003 was beyond limitation as the plaintiff did not prove any extension of time. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- burden of proof
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- agreement of sale
- advance consideration
- limitation
