Skip to main content

Plaintiff Is Entitled To Specific Performance Of Contract Only If He Sticks To Original Terms Of Contract

The High Court of Kerala has held that a plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of contract only if he sticks to the original terms of the contract. Any variance from the original terms, even if such variance is to the benefit of the defendant, will disentitle him from seeking the discretionary relief of specific performance.

This was made clear by the division bench comprising Justice V Chitambaresh and Justice Satish Ninan, while deciding an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the trial court which declined to order specific performance of agreement of sale. As per the original agreement, the offer price of the land was Rs 1 lakh per cent. Later, the plaintiff offered a higher price of Rs 1.75 lakh per cent. The court found that the subsequent offer resulted in variation of the original contract and that the plaintiff could not seek specific performance of original contract in such circumstances. It was observed as follows: “The plaintiff by floating a fresh offer at an enhanced rate has practically given up his original offer embodied in Ext.A2 agreement and has waived his right to stick on to the original terms agreed upon. The conduct of the plaintiff in issuing Ext.B1 letter to the first defendant offering a higher price for the property is certainly at variance with the follow up action intended on Ext.A2 agreement. Such conduct and circumstance could be put forward as a successful defence in a suit for specific performance [See: Ayissabi v. Gopala Konar (1988 (2) KLT 282)]. The plaintiff will be entitled to specific performance of Ext.A2 agreement only if he sticks on to its terms throughout as is enjoined under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The fact that the plaintiff has floated an offer which is more beneficial to the first defendant and that it is not in derogation of the terms originally agreed is of no avail.”

Hence, appeal was dismissed, confirming the decree of the trial court which had directed the return of advance money and had created a charge to that effect on the property.


Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/plaintiff-entitled-specific-performance-contract-sticks-original-terms-contract-kerala-hc-read-judgment/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more