TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies judgment post-death, stresses contract readiness for specific performance</h1> <h3>N.P. Thirugnanam (D) By Lrs Versus Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao And Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court held that there is no abatement by reason of the death of a party between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncement of the ... - Issues involved: Specific performance of contract, abatement due to death of plaintiff, readiness and willingness to perform contract.Abatement due to death of plaintiff: The Supreme Court held that as per Rule 6 of Order 22, there is no abatement by reason of the death of a party between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncement of the judgment. The judgment pronounced after the death of a party shall have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death took place. Therefore, the contention that the judgment and decree of the appellate court is a nullity due to the death of the plaintiff was deemed devoid of substance.Readiness and willingness to perform contract: The Court considered the evidence presented, including the plaintiff's failure to deposit a required amount or furnish a bank guarantee as directed by the court. It was noted that the plaintiff was involved in real estate transactions, had financial difficulties, and had not paid rent or fulfilled other obligations. The Court emphasized that continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent for specific performance, as per Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act 1963. The plaintiff's conduct before and after filing the suit, along with other circumstances, must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract.Specific performance of contract: The Court reiterated that the remedy for specific performance is an equitable remedy and is subject to the discretion of the court. The plaintiff must plead and prove that they have always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. Failure to prove continuous readiness and willingness may result in the denial of the relief of specific performance. The Court upheld the lower court's findings that the plaintiff had failed to show readiness and willingness to perform the contract, leading to the dismissal of the special leave petition.
TaxTMI 
