Skip to main content

Time cannot be presumed to be essence of the contract in sale of immovable properties

Cause Title : Gaddipati Divija & Anr. Vs Pathuri Samrajyam & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4206-4207 Of 2011, Supreme Court Of India

Date of Judgment/Order : 18/4/23

Corum : Krishna Murari; J., Sanjay Karol; J.

Citied: 

  1. N.P. Thirugnanam vs Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao & Ors, 1995 (5) SCC 115
  2. U.N. Krishnamurthy (since deceased) Thr. Lrs. vs A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 840
  3. Nanjappan vs Ramasamy & Anr., (2015) 14 SCC 341
  4. Jaswinder Kaur vs Gurmeet Singh & Ors, 2017 (12) SCC 810
  5. Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712
  6. Ardeshir H. Mama vs Flora Sassoon, AIR 1928 PC 208
  7. Syed Dastagir vs T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty, (1999) 6 SCC 337
  8.  Aniglase Yohannan vs Ramlatha & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 534

Background

One G. Venugopala Rao had contracted with the Respondent for sale of some immovable property against which advance was paid by the Respondent. When after 4 months, Mr. Rao demanded the remaining money, the Respondent refused alleging failure on part of Mr. Rao to demarcate the property and also not disclosing that there is an encumbrance on the property. While several litigations were going on, Mr. Rao passed away. The Respondent filed a suit against his heirs claiming specific performance of the contract which was partially rejected by the Trial court. On appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal and decreeing the suit for specific performance. Hence this appeal filed by the heirs alleging that the Respondents were not ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.  

Judgment

The Supreme Court however agreeing with the High Court held that :-
  • As stipulated under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (before 2018 amendment), the Respondents had averred before the High Court that she was always ready and willing to perform their part of contract with regard to the payment of the balance sale consideration and this evidence was not challenged by the Appellants. When a fact has been stated by witness and the same has not been challenged, it can be said that such a fact is admitted.
  • Mere stipulation of time would not make time the essence of the contract.
  • In case of sale of immovable property normally the time may not be essence of the contract.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more