NADIMINTI SURYANARAYAN MURTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus KOTHURTHI KRISHNA BHASKARA RAO & ORS.

NADIMINTI SURYANARAYAN MURTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus KOTHURTHI KRISHNA BHASKARA RAO & ORS.

The sale agreement dated 18.01.1983 between the plaintiff and defendant nos.1-5 was found to be genuine and bona fide, while the earlier purported agreement dated 04.01.1983 set up by defendant nos.1-6 was held bogus and created to defeat the plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff proved his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under s.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. Accordingly, specific performance of the agreement dated 18.01.1983 was decreed. The subsequent sale deed dated 09.02.1983 executed in favour of defendant no.6 would not bind the plaintiff, is void against him, and the owners must refund any consideration received from defendant no.6. Defendant no.6 must join...

Parties
Appellant/defendant No.6: Nadiminti Suryanarayan Murthy (Dead) through LRs.; Respondents/plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 5: Kothurthi Krishna Bhaskara Rao & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal Against Division Bench of High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Division Bench is upheld.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Readiness and Willingness, Lis Pendens, Restitution Under Contract Act S.65
Property Law Contract Law Specific Relief Specific Performance Readiness and Willingness Lis Pendens Restitution Under Contract Act S.65

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nadiminti Suryanarayan Murthy (Dead) through LRs.

Appellant/defendant No.6

Kothurthi Krishna Bhaskara Rao & Ors.

Respondents/plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 5

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal Against Division Bench of High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement dated 18.01.1983 between plaintiff and defendant nos.1-5 is genuine as against the agreement dated 04.01.1983 set up by defendant nos.1-6; whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part as required under s.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act; what is the effect of sale to a third party prior to decree for specific performance; what decree should be passed where property is sold to a third party prior to specific performance order.

Ratio Decidendi

The sale agreement dated 18.01.1983 between the plaintiff and defendant nos.1-5 was found to be genuine and bona fide, while the earlier purported agreement dated 04.01.1983 set up by defendant nos.1-6 was held bogus and created to defeat the plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff proved his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under s.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. Accordingly, specific performance of the agreement dated 18.01.1983 was decreed. The subsequent sale deed dated 09.02.1983 executed in favour of defendant no.6 would not bind the plaintiff, is void against him, and the owners must refund any consideration received from defendant no.6. Defendant no.6 must join...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Division Bench is upheld.

Orders

  • Decree of specific performance of agreement dated 18.01.1983 in plaintiff’s favour; plaintiff to pay balance consideration to defendant nos.1-5; defendants 1-5 to execute sale deed and give possession to plaintiff; sale deed dated 09.02.1983 in favour of defendant no.6 is void as against plaintiff; defendant nos.1-5...