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, which dismissed his suit for specific performance of contract. The appellant was the plaintiff in the trial court, and the respondent was the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant, being the absolute owner of a property bearing No.10/6, 6th Main, Magadi Road Chord Road, Corporation Division No.29, Govindarajanagar, Bangalore, approached him for a loan and offered to sell the property. An agreement of sale was executed on 12.1.2000 for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-, and the plaintiff paid Rs.4,00,000/- as advance on the same day. The balance of Rs.50,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed, which was to be executed within three months from the date of the agreement. The plaintiff alleged that despite his readiness and willingness, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed. He issued a notice dated 8.5.2000, which the defendant refused, and later the defendant requested more time, which the plaintiff granted. The plaintiff finally approached the court in December 2002. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the High Court upheld the dismissal. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court noted that the plaintiff did not produce any evidence to show that he had the balance consideration of Rs.50,000/- ready at the relevant time. Additionally, the suit was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the agreement fixed three months for performance, and the suit was filed beyond three years from the expiry of that period. 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 date of decree. The court held that the plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that he was ready with the balance consideration within the stipulated time or thereafter. (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 suit was filed beyond the period of limitation as the agreement fixed three months for performance and the plaintiff did not file suit within three years from the expiry of that period. (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. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 8.6.2009 in O.S.No.15058/2003 are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- burden of proof
- agreement of sale
- limitation
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
