In a second appeal regarding specific performance of a sale agreement, the court held that maintaining silence for 8½ years while the vendor held possession barred the claim despite the nominal balance. The first appellate court's dismissal was affirmed.
Second appeal dismissed confirming the judgment of the first appellate court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
SECOND APPEAL No.469 of 2013
JUDGMENT :
The Second Appeal has been filed assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 20.03.2013, passed in A.S.No.313 of 2012 by the learned District Judge, Guntur in setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 31.07.2012 in O.S.No.664 of 2008 passed by the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.
The plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific performance of contract of sale dated 15.06.1999 alleged to have been executed by the defendant in respect of plaint schedule property for Rs. 1,10,000/- and received advance of Rs. 1,07,500/- and to pay balance of Rs. 2,500/- to the defendant at the time of execution of registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff or his nominee at his expenses. The plaintiff expressed his willingness, but the defendant protracted the same, despite demands made by the plaintiff to execute registered sale deed. Hence the suit.
The respondent herein is the defendant in the suit has filed counter denying all material allegations and mainly contended that
2
the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and mortgaged the same to PACS, Varagani and he never intended to sell the property. The plaintiff maintained silence for 9 years and the same is brought into existence due to family disputes. Therefore the suit is barred by limitation and that the suit is liable to be dismissed.
framed the following issues for trial:
1. Whether the agreement of sale dated 15.06.1999 is true, genuine and executed by defendant?
2. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract?
3. Whether the claim of plaintiff is not barred by time?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract and also delivery of possession?
5. To what relief?
3
execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominees in respect of the plaint schedule property and deliver its possession to him. Assailing the said decree and judgment of the trial court, the respondent therein i.e defendant have preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 313 of 2012. The first appellate court has framed the following points for consideration in the Appeal:
1. Whether the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part under contract of sale Ex.A1?
2. Whether the suit is in time and failing to file the suit within reasonable time, disentitles the plaintiff to claim the relief of specific performance, as it is a discretionary relief?
1. Whether the plaintiff-appellant is disentitled for the discriminatory relief of specific performance of agreement of contract under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act by drawing adverse inference of not ready and willing to perform his part for not making a demand for execution of the Sale Deed for a period of 8 ½ years when the balance of sale consideration payable is only Rs. 2,500/- out of Rs. 1,10,000/- and when the defendant-vendor had not redeemed the mortgage?
4
2. Whether plaintiff is not entitled for the discretionary relief of specific performance of agreement of contract after 8 ½ years from the date of execution of agreement Ex.A1 under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, when the time is not the essence of contract and there is no denial or refusal by the opposite party for commencement of limitation?
5
nominal amount and that the possession continued with the vendor and no prejudice is caused in not demanding execution of the sale deed at the earliest. Therefore the findings of the first appellate court are based on mere surmises and the same is liable to be set aside.
6
favour.Ex.A2 notice demanding specific performance after Government waived the loan of the defendant. Therefore, the delay in filing this suit seeking specific performance cannot be taken as a ground to deny specific performance.
“6. It is true that grant of decree of specific performance lies in the discretion of the Court and it is also well settled that is not always necessary to grant specific performance simply for the reason that it is legal to do so. It is further well settled that the Court in its discretion can impose any reasonable condition including payment of an additional amount by one party to the other while granting or refusing decree of specific performance”.
1 (2002) Supp. (2) SCR 706
7
8
the judgment of the first appellate court. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
___________________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
Date: 18.08.2023.
KK
9
THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
SECOND APPEAL No.469 of 2013
Date: 18.08.2023. KK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff is disentitled for specific performance by drawing adverse inference for not demanding execution of the sale deed for 8½ years?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to discretionary relief of specific performance after 8½ years when the balance consideration is nominal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nirmala Anand vs. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. and OthersReferred¶40
Nirmala Anand vs. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd., and Others 1 (2002) Supp. (2) SCR 706 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Appellant (Plaintiff)
Respondent (Defendant)
K. Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
