Case Note & Summary
The appellant-defendant S. Kashinath challenged the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2010 passed by the 11th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 11192/2006, which decreed the suit for specific performance in favor of the respondent-plaintiff Smt. Padmini Ramnath. The suit pertained to an agreement to sell dated 28.10.2004 for a commercial apartment/flat bearing No. S-112 (47/136) situated on the First Floor, South Block, Manipal Centre, Dickenson Road, Bangalore. The total sale consideration was Rs.9,25,000, out of which the plaintiff had paid Rs.8,50,000 at the time of the agreement. The balance amount was to be paid at the time of registration, subject to the defendant furnishing necessary documents, including original title deeds and tax paid receipts. The defendant agreed to execute the sale deed but failed to do so, leading to the suit. The trial court decreed the suit, directing specific performance. The defendant appealed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the plaintiff had proved her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract, having paid a substantial advance. The defendant's failure to furnish documents and execute the sale deed constituted a breach. The court held that the trial court's decree was justified and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell - Readiness and Willingness - Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff paid substantial advance of Rs.8,50,000 out of total consideration of Rs.9,25,000 and was ready to pay balance at registration. The defendant failed to furnish title deeds and execute sale deed. Held that plaintiff's conduct showed readiness and willingness, and trial court's decree was justified. (Paras 2-4)
B) Civil Procedure Code - Appeal against Decree - Section 96 CPC - The defendant appealed against the trial court's decree for specific performance. The High Court found no grounds to interfere as the plaintiff had proved her case. Held that the appeal was devoid of merits and dismissed. (Paras 1, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and whether the trial court correctly decreed specific performance of the agreement to sell.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs, upholding the trial court's decree for specific performance.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Agreement to sell
- Readiness and willingness
- Section 96 CPC
- Section 20 Specific Relief Act
Case Details
2013 LawText (KAR) (01) 19
Regular First Appeal No.1304/2010
Sri. Reuben Jacob (for appellant), Sri. G. Krishna Murthy (for respondent/caveator)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property.
Remedy Sought
The appellant-defendant sought to set aside the trial court's decree directing specific performance of the agreement to sell.
Filing Reason
The defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite receiving substantial advance payment, leading the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (11th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City) decreed the suit in O.S. No.11192/2006 on 03.07.2010, ordering specific performance.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract?
Whether the trial court correctly decreed specific performance?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.
Respondent contended that she had paid substantial advance and was always ready to pay the balance.
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff's payment of a substantial portion of the sale consideration (Rs.8,50,000 out of Rs.9,25,000) and her willingness to pay the balance at registration demonstrated readiness and willingness. The defendant's failure to furnish title deeds and execute the sale deed constituted a breach, justifying specific performance.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the 11th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in OS No.11192/2006.
A suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff for purchasing the property, a commercial apartment/flat bearing No.S-112 (47/136) situated in the First Floor, South Block, Manipal Centre, Dickenson Road, Bangalore.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant had agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.9,25,000/- out of which, the plaintiff had paid Rs.8,50,000/- at the time of agreement which was entered between the parties on 28.10.2004.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed O.S. No.11192/2006 before the 11th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 28.10.2004. The trial court decreed the suit on 03.07.2010. The defendant appealed to the High Court of Karnataka under Section 96 of CPC, which was dismissed on 11.01.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 20
