2015 STPL(Web) 678 MAD
[AIR 2015 MADRAS 73]
MADRAS HIGH COURT
(TMT. PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.)
NANJACHARY
Appellant
VERSUS
P. CHENNAVEERACHARI AND OTHERS
Respondents
Second Appeal No. 966 of 2006-Decided on 9-9-2014.
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16 - Contract Act, 1872, Section 55 - Agreement to Sell - Time Essence of Contract – Specific Performance - Plaintiff has taken unfair advantage of his position to compel the defendants 1 and 2 to sell the suit property to him - When time is the essence of agreement insofar as the sale price is concerned the delay on the part of the plaintiff in not performing his part of the contract and taking advantage of his own wrong cannot be permitted - When the defendants were in dire need of money, they had proposed to sell the property - In such circumstances, the plaintiff ought to have offered the money at the earliest or else, the purpose is lost - Plaintiff had not established his case that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract even on the date of suit - Plaintiff cannot be entitled to a decree of specific performance.
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16 - Contract Act, 1872, Section 55 - Agreement to Sell - Time Essence of Contract – Specific Performance - Plaintiff has taken unfair advantage of his position to compel the defendants 1 and 2 to sell the suit property to him - When time is the essence of agreement insofar as the sale price is concerned the delay on the part of the plaintiff in not performing his part of the contract and taking advantage of his own wrong cannot be permitted - When the defendants were in dire need of money, they had proposed to sell the property - In such circumstances, the plaintiff ought to have offered the money at the earliest or else, the purpose is lost - Plaintiff had not established his case that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract even on the date of suit - Plaintiff cannot be entitled to a decree of specific performance.
Comments
Post a Comment