Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute over a house property allotted by the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) to the respondent, Venkateshulu, in 1989. The appellants, Smt H Lalithamma and Vemareddi, claimed that they entered into an agreement with the respondent to purchase the property for a consideration of Rs.9,000, took possession, and paid the installments to KHB. The respondent denied the agreement and filed a suit for declaration of title and possession (OS 97/2005), while the appellant Lalithamma filed a suit for specific performance (OS 420/2005). The trial court dismissed the suit for specific performance and decreed the suit for declaration and possession. The first appellate court upheld the dismissal of specific performance but modified the decree to direct refund of the consideration amount and installments paid by the appellants to KHB, with interest. The appellants filed second appeals challenging the dismissal of specific performance, and the respondent filed a cross objection challenging the direction for refund. The High Court dismissed the appeals and the cross objection, holding that the appellant failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation, and the concurrent findings of fact did not raise any substantial question of law. The court also noted that the appellant did not deposit the balance consideration or take steps to enforce the agreement within a reasonable time. The cross objection was dismissed as the first appellate court's direction for refund was equitable and not interfered with.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Agreement holder must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract - In the instant case, the appellant failed to prove readiness and willingness as she did not deposit the balance consideration or take steps to enforce the agreement within a reasonable time - Held that the trial court and first appellate court correctly declined specific performance (Paras 4-6). B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Suit for Specific Performance - Limitation period of three years from the date fixed for performance or when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused - The agreement did not fix a date for performance; the suit was filed beyond three years from the date of refusal - Held that the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation (Para 5). C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 53A - Part Performance - The appellant claimed protection under Section 53A based on possession and part payment - However, the agreement was not registered and the appellant failed to prove readiness and willingness - Held that the benefit of Section 53A is not available to the appellant (Para 6). D) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - No substantial question of law arises when findings of fact are concurrent and based on evidence - The High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence in second appeal - Held that the appeals are dismissed (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant/agreement holder is entitled to specific performance of the agreement of sale and whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to declaration of title and possession.
Final Decision
Both second appeals and the cross objection are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Agreement of sale
- Possession
- Karnataka Housing Board allotment
- Limitation
- Adverse possession
