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>Appellant's Claim for Specific Performance Denied: Importance of Continuous Readiness and Willingness</h1> <h3>K.S. Sundaramayyar Versus K. Jagadeesan And Anr.</h3> The appellant's claim for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a house was denied by the High Court. The Court held that the appellant's ... - Issues:1. Specific performance of contract for the sale of a house.2. Time as essence of the contract and continuous readiness and willingness of the appellant.3. Breach of contract by the appellant.4. Abandonment of right to specific performance by the appellant.5. Claim for damages and return of advance amount.6. Entitlement to relief by way of specific performance.7. Return of advance amount.Analysis:1. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a house. The agreement specified a price and a deadline for completion of the sale, failing which required written consent from both parties for extension.2. The defense argued that time was of the essence and the appellant's failure to tender the balance of the purchase money within the stipulated time released the respondent from the contract. Additionally, the appellant's lack of continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract was highlighted.3. The Subordinate Judge found that time was not the essence of the contract but ruled against the appellant due to the appellant's breach, despite the respondent being ready and willing to perform.4. The High Court disagreed with the Subordinate Judge's view on time being non-essential but did not delve into that issue due to another crucial matter.5. Evidence indicated the appellant was not continuously ready and willing to perform the contract, as demonstrated by subsequent correspondence and actions taken.6. The appellant's notice demanding damages and return of the advance payment indicated a decision to terminate the contract, which was inconsistent with seeking specific performance. The subsequent correspondence reinforced this stance.7. The appellant later changed his stance, seeking specific performance, but the Court viewed this as an abandonment of the right to specific performance due to the prior demand for damages and return of the advance payment.8. The Court cited precedent emphasizing that once a party elects to accept a breach and claim damages, they cannot later revive the contract for specific performance. Continuous readiness and willingness are crucial for specific performance claims.9. The appellant's demand for a return of the advance payment and damages indicated a termination of the contract, precluding the right to specific performance. The Court rejected the appellant's claim for specific performance based on this election.10. The Court did not address the issue of the return of the advance payment further, as the appellant's claim for specific performance was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, and no appeal was made on this aspect.11. The appeal was ultimately dismissed without costs, considering the circumstances of the case.12. In conclusion, the appellant's claim for specific performance was denied due to the actions taken, including the demand for damages and return of the advance payment, which indicated an abandonment of the right to seek specific performance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
