The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the trial court's decree rejecting the plaintiff's suit for specific performance. The court held the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness, noting a delay of three years in filing the suit.
The appeal was dismissed; the judgment and decree of the trial court confirmed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 01.11.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
A.S.No.306 of 2015 and M.P No.1 of 2015
S.A.Elumalai ...Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs
Prayer:- This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Order 41 rule 1 r/w 96 of CPC to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2015 made in O.S.No.98 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vellore District.
For Appellant : Mr. K.S.Gnanasambandan For M/s.P.Chandrasekar For Respondents : Mr.T.Dhanyakumar for R1 & R2
JUDGMENT
(This case has been heard through Video Conferencing)
This appeal suit has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2015 made in O.S.No.98 of 2010, by the Principal District Judge, Vellore.
The plaintiff and the first defendant entered into a sale
agreement in respect of the suit property on 03.01.2008, for a sale consideration of Rs.19,50,000/- and also the first defendant received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the advance amount. Time limit is fixed as three months. The first defendant evaded to execute a sale deed and thereby, notices were exchanged between them. Thereafter, the first defendant executed a settlement deed in favour of his daughter, viz., the second defendant for the property, which is found in the sale agreement. Hence, the suit.
" (i) Whether the sale agreement is true and valid?
(ii) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary and proper parties?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract as prayed for?
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
v) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?
the side of the Defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked.
(i) Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? and
(ii) Whether the time is essence of the contract?
Principal District Judge, Vellore is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
uma
To
+1cc to Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.10416
+2ccs to Mr.P.Chandrasekar, Advocate, S.R.No.10047
A.S.No.306 of 2015 and M.P No.1 of 2015
VBM(CO) SU(07/06/2022)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant/plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?
Whether time is the essence of the contract?
Whether the suit for specific performance is maintainable after a lapse of three years?
S.A.Elumalai
A.M.Vinayagam
Kavitha
A.A.Nakkiran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
