Supreme Court overturns specific performance decree, restores Trial Court judgment in property dispute
Justices PS Narasimha & Aravind Kumar [10-07-2024]
Read Order: PYDI RAMANA @ RAMULU v. DAVARASETY MANMADHA RAO [SC- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2013]
LE Correspondent
New Delhi, July 11, 2024: The Supreme Court has set aside the orders of the High Court and the First Appellate Court which had granted specific performance of a property sale agreement to the respondent-plaintiff. The apex court restored the judgment of the trial court which had refused the relief of specific performance.
The case relates to a property dispute between appellant Pydi Ramana @ Ramulu and respondent Davarasety Manmadha Rao. In 1993, the appellant had allegedly agreed to sell a property measuring 1.38 acres to the respondent for a consideration of Rs. 705 per cent. An advance amount was paid and the sale was to be completed within one year after getting the land surveyed. However, the sale was not completed even after 3 years. The respondent issued a legal notice to the appellant in 1996 and filed a suit for specific performance in 1997.
The trial court rejected the claim for specific performance citing the respondent's inaction and failure to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. However, the appellate court and high court reversed this and granted the decree of specific performance.
Overturning the high court order, the Supreme Court held that the respondent failed to take timely steps to get the land surveyed and complete the sale as agreed. There was an unexplained delay of 3 years in issuing the legal notice and filing the suit.
The top court said the respondent did not sufficiently explain and prove his continuous readiness and willingness, which is a prerequisite for granting specific performance relief. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the high court and appellate court, while restoring the trial court's order dismissing the respondent's claim for specific performance. The court reiterated that unexplained delays and lack of reasonable steps by a plaintiff can disentitle them to the equitable relief of specific performance.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to stay up to date on our product, events featured blog, special offer and all of the exciting things that take place here at Legitquest.
Add a Comment