Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertains to a house property allotted by the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) to the respondent, Venkateshulu, in 1989. The appellant, Smt H Lalithamma, claimed that she entered into an agreement with the respondent to purchase the property for a consideration of Rs.9,000, and that she took possession and paid the installments to KHB. The respondent denied the agreement and filed a suit for declaration and possession (OS 97/2005). The appellant subsequently filed a suit for specific performance (OS 420/2005). The trial court dismissed the appellant's suit and decreed the respondent's suit. The Fast Track Court in appeal (RA 133/2008 and 134/2008) upheld the trial court's findings. The appellant filed two second appeals under Section 100 CPC, and the respondent filed a cross objection. The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the appellant's readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The court noted that the appellant did not pay the balance consideration and that the suit for specific performance was filed only after the respondent filed his suit. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse and that the appellant failed to prove readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The appeals were dismissed, and the cross objection was allowed in part, directing the appellant to refund the consideration amount of Rs.9,000 and the installments paid to KHB, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till payment.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The appellant sought specific performance of an agreement of sale for a house allotted by KHB to the respondent. The courts below concurrently held that the appellant failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract. The High Court affirmed, noting that the appellant did not pay the balance consideration and the suit was filed after the respondent filed for declaration and possession. Held that the appellant was not entitled to specific performance as she was not ready and willing to perform the contract (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant/agreement holder is entitled to specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of the suit property, and whether the concurrent findings of the courts below are perverse or suffer from any substantial question of law.
Final Decision
The second appeals are dismissed. The cross objection is allowed in part. The appellant is directed to refund the consideration amount of Rs.9,000 and the installments paid to KHB, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till payment.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Agreement of sale
- Possession
- Installments
- Karnataka Housing Board allotment
