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

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

Winding-Up Petition Can’t Be Used If Bona Fide Payment Disputes Pending

The Karnataka High Court, in the case of M/s Uttam Industrial Engineering Ltd vs  M/s Shree Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd, has held that a winding-up petition has serious  ramifications on the financial standing of a company and cannot be used in cases  where there is a bona fide dispute regarding the amount owed by one party to the  other and in such cases the company court should relegate the matter either to the  civil court or arbitral tribunal. In this case, Uttam Industrial Ltd entered into a contract with Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd  to provide machinery and equipment for a sugar plant. Article referred:  http://www.livelaw.in/remedy-winding-petition-cant-relied-upon-bona-fide-payment-disputes-karnataka-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more