Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that “mere possession of a valid sale agreement does not automatically entitle a party to specific performance, especially when there is evidence of delay and inaction on the plaintiff’s part.”
Brief Facts:
The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 15.02.1996. The plaintiff claimed that he remained ready and willing to perform his obligations, but the defendant failed to measure the land or execute the sale deed. The plaintiff sought specific performance or, alternatively, a refund of Rs. 1,40,000 with interest. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to complete the transaction. The trial court partly decreed the suit, denying specific performance but granting a refund of Rs. 50,000 with interest. The plaintiff filed the present appeal challenging the denial of specific performance.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court erred in refusing specific performance despite the existence of a valid sale agreement. It was contended that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion properly, as specific performance is a discretionary relief that should have been granted in the appellant’s favor. The appellant also challenged the trial court’s finding that he was not continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the trial court’s decision was justified, as the plaintiff failed to prove his continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract. It was submitted that the plaintiff did not issue any legal notice or make any effort to complete the sale within the stipulated time. The defendant had even issued a reply notice on 03.05.1999, stating that she was willing to execute the sale deed if the balance amount was paid, but the plaintiff did not act upon it.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the relief of specific performance is discretionary and depends on whether the plaintiff has demonstrated continuous readiness and willingness to fulfill his contractual obligations. The court emphasized that mere possession of a valid sale agreement does not automatically entitle a party to specific performance, especially when there is evidence of delay and inaction on the plaintiff’s part.
The Court observed that it cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that since no cross objections are filed by the appellant against the said finding given by the learned trial Judge, the First Appellate Court is not bound to examine the said aspect. The Court said that since the plaintiff failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness, and considering the delay and false claim, the trial court was justified in denying specific performance and instead granting a refund of the advance amount.
Decision of the Court:
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant challenging the decree and judgment, dated 09.06.2003, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, affirming the trial court’s decision to deny specific performance and grant a refund of the advance amount.
Case Title: K. Sudhakar vs. P. Subba Raja Kumari & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao
Case No.: FIRST APPEAL NO: 3648/2003
Advocate for the Appellant: Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana
Advocate for the Respondents: Sri D.S. Sivadarshan, Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad
