2006 (3) TMI 745 - HC - Indian Laws

Appellate Court Decrees Specific Performance, Sets Aside Trial Judgment

Manasa Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. Versus Marikellaiah

The appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's judgment and decree. The suit for specific performance was decreed, directing the ... - Issues Involved:1. Specific performance of an agreement for sale.2. Readiness and willingness to perform the contract.3. Variance in pleadings and proof.4. Jurisdiction of civil courts under Sections 79B and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.5. Hardship to defendants.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Specific Performance of an Agreement for Sale:The plaintiff, a registered Housing Co-operative Society, sought a decree for specific performance of agreements dated 18.9.1993 and 18.10.1993, directing the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration and execute a registered sale deed. The trial court acknowledged the agreements and payments but dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform its part of the contract.2. Readiness and Willingness to Perform the Contract:The plaintiff argued that it was always ready and willing to perform its part of the contract, evidenced by multiple payments totaling Rs. 1,89,000/-. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was not ready and willing, and the sale transaction was to be completed within the stipulated time, which the plaintiff failed to honor. The appellate court found that the plaintiff had shown readiness and willingness through continuous payments and efforts to negotiate, and the delay was due to a legal bar from a suit filed by the defendants' sisters.3. Variance in Pleadings and Proof:The defendants argued that there was a variance between the pleadings and the proof, citing letters where the plaintiff offered to pay additional amounts. The appellate court held that these offers did not alter the original contract terms but were gestures of goodwill. The court found no variance that would affect the enforceability of the original agreement.4. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Sections 79B and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act:The defendants contended that the plaintiff, not being an agriculturist, was barred from holding agricultural land under Sections 79B and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The appellate court held that the civil court is not competent to decide on the legality of transactions under these sections, as such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the prescribed statutory authorities. The court cited several precedents affirming that the question of legality under the Act must be decided by the authority under Section 83 and not by the civil court.5. Hardship to Defendants:The defendants argued that granting the decree would cause them hardship due to the rise in land prices. The appellate court found no evidence of hardship presented by the defendants. The court noted that inadequacy of price or rise in price alone does not justify denying specific performance unless greater hardship is proven. The plaintiff's offer to pay additional amounts further negated the hardship argument.Conclusion:The appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's judgment and decree. The suit for specific performance was decreed, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed and deliver vacant possession of the property. The court emphasized the plaintiff's readiness and willingness, the non-variance of the contract terms, and the jurisdictional limits of the civil court under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. No order as to costs was made.