Scribd
Upload
88 views2 pages

Specific Performance Case Analysis

1. The appellant owned a property and agreed to sell it to the respondent for Rs. 15,10,000, with Rs. 10,001 paid in advance. However, the appellant later denied the oral agreement and refused to execute the sale deed. 2. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance. The trial court and high court ruled in the respondent's favor. 3. The Supreme Court observed that to grant specific performance, the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their obligations under the contract. It found the respondent did not meet this requirement and was not entitled to the relief sought.

Uploaded by

Gowri R
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
88 views2 pages

Specific Performance Case Analysis

1. The appellant owned a property and agreed to sell it to the respondent for Rs. 15,10,000, with Rs. 10,001 paid in advance. However, the appellant later denied the oral agreement and refused to execute the sale deed. 2. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance. The trial court and high court ruled in the respondent's favor. 3. The Supreme Court observed that to grant specific performance, the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their obligations under the contract. It found the respondent did not meet this requirement and was not entitled to the relief sought.

Uploaded by

Gowri R
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Research Note

Case brief of U.N. Krishnamurthy (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs. v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 840.

Brief Facts:

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

1. Appellant was the absolute owner of the suit property. While he was getting the suit property
whitewashed, a real estate agent approached him with an offer to arrange the sale of the suit
property at a good price.
2. Appellant agreed to sell the suit property to respondent for of Rs. 15,10,000/-, out of which sum
of Rs. 10,001/- was paid in advance. According to the respondent, he approached appellant with
the balance consideration several times and requested him to execute the sale deed in his favour,
but the he kept postponing execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other.
3. The respondent issued a legal notice to call upon appellant to execute the sale deed in his favour
after receiving the balance the balance consideration. By a letter sent in response to the legal
notice, the appellant denied having entered into any oral sale agreement for sale of the suit
property.
4. The respondent allegedly approached the appellant with a request to receive the balance
consideration and to execute the sale deed in his favour, but appellant went back upon his
promise and refused to accede to his request. The respondent filed the suit against the appellant.
5. The appellant filed a written statement denying the allegations in the plaint.

Issues:

The primary issue for consideration before the apex court was whether the respondent has proved his
readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract or not?

Judgement:

The Trial Court ruled in favour of the respondent and the High Court subsequently upheld the judgement
and decree passed by the Trial Court. The apex Court observed that in a suit for specific performance of a
contract, the Court is required to pose unto itself the following questions:

1. Whether there is a valid agreement of sale binding on both the vendor and the vendee and
2. Whether the Plaintiff has all along been and still is ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract as envisaged under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the respondent was not entitled to the relief of specific
performance. The two judge bench observed that continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the
Plaintiff is a condition precedent for grant of the relief of Specific Performance. Additionally, there is a
distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract and both ingredients are necessary
for the relief of Specific Performance. While readiness means the capacity to perform the contract which
would include his financial position, whereas willingness relates to the conduct.

You might also like