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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

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