Continuous Readiness And Willingness On Part Of Purchaser Is Condition Precedent For Granting Relief Of Specific Performance: Karnataka HC

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh held thus while dismissing the appeal filed by one Bylamurthy challenging an order of the trial court and the first appellate court rejecting his prayer for specific relief.

The court said “The Court has to take note of the conduct and nothing is placed on record that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract between 2003 (Agreement to Sale entered) to 2008 (Notice for Specific Performance issued) to make the balance payment of Rs.3,65,000. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in declining to grant the relief of specific performance.”

Bylamurthy claimed that he had entered into a sale agreement with the father of M G Gangalakshmamma and others in the year 2003 for a sale consideration of Rs.8,65,000, out of which Rs.4,00,000 was paid. Subsequently, an amount of Rs.1,00,000 was also paid on 21.07.2004. However, in 2005 the father of the defendants expired.

The trial court and the appellate court held that there was a sale agreement between the plaintiff and the father of the defendants. However, the sale agreement which came into existence in the year 2003 and an additional payment of Rs.1,00,000 was paid on 21.07.2004, the executant passed away in the year 2005 and the first notice was issued by the appellant in the year 2008. No effort was made between 2003 to 2008 to execute the sale deed. Hence, Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act has not been complied by the plaintiff.

Before the court, the appellant contended that the defendant succeeded the estate of the deceased including the suit property. Hence the defendants are bound to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration.

Further, a major portion of the amount has been paid, issuance of notice is not mandatory. Thus readiness and willingness cannot be treated as a straight jacket formula and issues have to be decided keeping the facts and circumstances relevant to the intention and conduct of the parties is concerned, it was stated.

Findings:

The bench noted that when the suit is filed for the relief of specific performance, the court has to take note of the total evidence available on record. It said that mere execution of the sale agreement itself is not a ground for granting the relief of specific performance the conduct of the parties while granting the relief of specific performance is to be considered. Readiness and willingness also play a vital role, in whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance or not.

Then it said “Almost after 5 years of execution of sale agreement since sale agreement dated 05.02.2003 and notice was given on 17.06.2008 and reply was given on 25.06.2008. Even after the death of the original executant for sale agreement in the year 2005, no effort was made by the plaintiff in between 2005 to 2008 till the issuance of notice.”

Following this it held “The Court has to take note of the conduct and nothing is placed on record that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract between 2003 to 2008 to make the balance payment of Rs.3,65,000. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court in declining to grant the relief of specific performance.”

Appearance: Senior Advocate D L Jagadeesh for Advocate G Chandrashekharaiah for Appellant.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 324

Case Title: Bylamurthy AND M.G Gangalakshmamma & Others

Case No: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1457 OF 2022