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, and the respondent was the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant 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 defendant, in need of money, approached him 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/-. The plaintiff 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, which was to be executed within three months from the date of the agreement. The plaintiff claimed he was ready with the balance amount, but the defendant did not come forward to complete the transaction. He issued a notice dated 8.5.2000, which the defendant refused. The defendant allegedly met him and requested him to wait for six months, and later for more time, which the plaintiff agreed to. However, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed. The defendant denied the agreement and receipt of advance. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness and that the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the plaintiff did not produce any evidence to show that he was ready with the balance consideration or that the agreement was extended. The court noted that the suit was filed beyond three years from the date fixed for performance (12.4.2000) and that the alleged oral extensions were not proved. The court also observed that the plaintiff did not examine himself or any witness to prove the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment.
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 the contract from the date of agreement till the decree. The court found that the plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that he was ready with the balance consideration and that the suit was barred by limitation. (Paras 2-10) 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. The agreement fixed three months from 12.1.2000, i.e., by 12.4.2000. The suit filed in 2003 was beyond limitation, and the plaintiff's alleged oral extensions were not proved. (Paras 2-10)
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 maintainable.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 8.6.2009 in O.S.No.15058/2003 are confirmed.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- burden of proof
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- agreement of sale
- advance consideration
- limitation
