Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    CPC Homework-2

    Uploaded by

    Murali Chandana
    1) The appellant agreed to sell part of her property to the respondent based on an agreement in 1989. The respondent paid installments but the appellant refused to execute the sale deed. 2) The respondent filed a suit for specific performance which the trial court upheld. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined prior cases on readiness and willingness and found the respondent had pleaded all legal requirements and proved readiness to perform. 3) The Court upheld the trial court's judgment in favor of the respondent, finding the suit was filed on time and all requirements for specific performance were met.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CPC Homework-2

    Uploaded by

    Murali Chandana
    31 views3 pages
    1) The appellant agreed to sell part of her property to the respondent based on an agreement in 1989. The respondent paid installments but the appellant refused to execute the sale deed. 2) The respondent filed a suit for specific performance which the trial court upheld. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined prior cases on readiness and willingness and found the respondent had pleaded all legal requirements and proved readiness to perform. 3) The Court upheld the trial court's judgment in favor of the respondent, finding the suit was filed on time and all requirements for specific performance were met.

    Original Title

    CPC HOMEWORK-2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The appellant agreed to sell part of her property to the respondent based on an agreement in 1989. The respondent paid installments but the appellant refused to execute the sale deed. 2) The respondent filed a suit for specific performance which the trial court upheld. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined prior cases on readiness and willingness and found the respondent had pleaded all legal requirements and proved readiness to perform. 3) The Court upheld the trial court's judgment in favor of the respondent, finding the suit was filed on time and all requirements for specific performance were met.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    31 views3 pages

    CPC Homework-2

    Uploaded by

    Murali Chandana
    1) The appellant agreed to sell part of her property to the respondent based on an agreement in 1989. The respondent paid installments but the appellant refused to execute the sale deed. 2) The respondent filed a suit for specific performance which the trial court upheld. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined prior cases on readiness and willingness and found the respondent had pleaded all legal requirements and proved readiness to perform. 3) The Court upheld the trial court's judgment in favor of the respondent, finding the suit was filed on time and all requirements for specific performance were met.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - HOMEWORK 2

    NAME: M.CHANDANA (2018109)

    A. KANTHAMANI V. NASREEN AHMED (2017) 4 SCC 654.

    Date: 6 March 2017.

    Bench: A.M. Sapre, R.K. Agrawal

    FACTS OF THE CASE

    1. The appellant-defendant is the owner of the property who has enterted into an agreement
    for sale with the respondent-plaintiff on 05.03.1989 in respect of a part of ground floor of
    the said property with 1/3rd undivided share in the other property for a consideration of
    Rs.3,43,200.

    2. A sum of Rs.1,30,000 was paid as advance money. Thereafter, the respondent paid Rs.
    20,000/- towards sale on 03.04.1989, Rs. 10,000 then again on 04.05.1989, Rs. 15,000 on
    03.07.1989, Rs. 15,000 on 06.07.1989 and Rs. 16,000 on 16.08.1989. The respondent
    agreed to pay the balance amount on or before 31.12.1989 to the appellant.

    3. It was alleged that the appellant also orally agreed to sell to the respondent an additional
    area of 132.25 sq.ft. at the ground floor and 4 of undivided share and for that additional
    property, the respondent paid a sum of Rs.46,000 as an advance money.

    4. On 10.11.1989, the respondent sent a draft sale deed to the appellant for an area
    measuring 847.25 sq.ft. and one 1/2 undivided share. The appellant though agreed to sell
    the additional extent of land orally, she refused to do so and returned the draft sale deed
    on 04.12.1989 for approval of the respondent by treating the sum of Rs.46,000/- paid by
    her for additional extent as further advance for the earlier written agreement.

    5. On 15.12.1989, the appellant sent another draft sale deed for approval of the respondent
    by removing clauses 18 and 27 and with minor changes. Since these deleted clauses
    referred to clauses 17 and 24 of the agreement of sale, the respondent approved the first
    draft which contained these clauses.

    6. On 27.12.1989, the appellant wrote a letter to the respondent insisting upon her to
    approve her second draft on or before 31.12.1989. The respondent approved the same and
    sent to the appellant on 28.12.1989 by speed post and also enclosed a letter from the LIC
    sanctioning loan of Rs.1 lakh in her favour. The respondent further informed that she is
    willing to bring the balance of sale consideration at the time of registration of the sale
    deed.

    7. Later on, the respondent sent a legal notice through her advocate calling upon the
    appellant to execute and register the sale deed on or before 10.01.1990 in her favour. But,
    by letter dated 03.01.1990 through her advocate, the appellant refused to sell the property
    to the respondent and cancelled the agreement.

    8. Appellant who failed to perform her part without any justification thus committed breach
    of the agreement thus the respondent then filed a suit against the appellant for specific
    performance of the agreement.

    INTERPRETATION OF APEX COURT


    The court observed that in absence of section 16(c), the requirement of readiness and
    willingness was used to be considered mandatory in the suits for specific performance by
    virtue of law.1 It is in this Case which went to Privy Council from Indian Courts, The PC has
    laid down the following principle. The Act of 1963 made this requirement a statutory one by
    enacting Section 16 (c). Hence, the plaint which seeks the relief of specific performance of
    the contract must contain all requirements of Section 16 (c).

    The court analysed the expression “readiness and willingness” which was subjected to
    interpretation in many cases prior to its insertion. The court relied on Bank of India Limited &
    Ors. v Jamsetji A.H. Chinoy and Company2, to examine as to how the plaintiff is required to
    prove his financial readiness to enable him to claim specific performance of the contract
    which stated that the plaintiff need not produce the money or vouch a concluded scheme for
    1
    Ardeshir H. Mama v Flora Sasoon, AIR 1928 PC 208.
    2
    Bank of India Limited & Ors. v Jamsetji A.H. Chinoy and Company, AIR 1950 PC.
    financing the transaction. The court also referred to the case of Sukhbir Singh & Ors. Vs. Brij
    Pal Singh & Ors.3 Which stated that the fact that they attended the Sub-Registrar’s office to
    have the sale deed executed proves that they had required money for payment at the time of
    registration.

    The court also examined the Article 54 of the Limitation Act which provides a period of 3
    year for filing a suit for specific performance of contract/agreement. Reads as- A period of 3
    years is required to be counted from the date fixed by the parties for the performance, or if no
    such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has noticed that the performance is refused.

    Lastly, the Court observed that the suit was maintainable as it was rightly filed immediately
    within 10 days on 10.01.1990. The plaintiff had pleaded the necessary requirements of
    Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 read with the requirement of Forms 47, 48 and
    Article 54 of the Limitation Act in the plaint and proved her readiness and willingness to
    perform her part of agreement. Thus, it upheld the judgment given by Trial Court.

    REFFRED CASES

    1) I.S. Sikander (Dead) by LRs. Vs. K. Subramani & Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 27.
    2) Ardeshir H. Mama vs Flora Sasoon, AIR 1928 PC 208.
    3) Clough v. London and North Western Railway Co., (1871) L.R. 7 Ex. 26.
    4) Bank of India Limited & Ors. v. Jamsetji A.H. Chinoy and Co., AIR 1950 PC 90.
    5) Sukhbir Singh & Ors. Vs. Brij Pal Singh & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2510.

    3
    Sukhbir Singh & Ors. Vs. Brij Pal Singh & Ors AIR 1996 SC 2510.

    You might also like