R LAKSHMIKANTHAM versus DEVARAJI

R LAKSHMIKANTHAM versus DEVARAJI

Clause 3 of the agreement must be read with clauses 5 and 8 so that the seller's obligation to clear the mortgage and obtain title documents is to be performed first, therefore time (the three months) was not of the essence; the registered A.D. letters of 18.12.2002 and 19.12.2002 were properly sent to the defendant's address and are deemed served, and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform; accordingly the High Court erred in setting aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below and the appeal is allowed to restore the decree for specific performance.

Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff in Trial: R. Lakshmikantam; Respondent / Defendant in Trial: Devaraji
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment in Second Appeal (second Appeal No.592 of 2011) to Supreme Court (civil Appeal No.2420 of 2018)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment dated 03.02.2017 set aside; judgments of the trial Court and the first appellate Court restored; decree for specific performance restored.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Readiness and Willingness to Perform, Time Is of the Essence, Service of Notices (registered A.d. Letters), Redemption of Mortgage / Title Documents
Contract Property Civil Procedure Specific Performance Readiness and Willingness to Perform Time Is of the Essence Service of Notices (registered A.d. Letters) Redemption of Mortgage / Title Documents

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. Lakshmikantam

Appellant / Plaintiff in Trial

Devaraji

Respondent / Defendant in Trial

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment in Second Appeal (second Appeal No.592 of 2011) to Supreme Court (civil Appeal No.2420 of 2018)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time was of the essence under clause 3 of the agreement to sell
  2. 2 Whether the letters dated 18.12.2002 and 19.12.2002 were proved to have been served on the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 3 of the agreement must be read with clauses 5 and 8 so that the seller's obligation to clear the mortgage and obtain title documents is to be performed first, therefore time (the three months) was not of the essence; the registered A.D. letters of 18.12.2002 and 19.12.2002 were properly sent to the defendant's address and are deemed served, and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform; accordingly the High Court erred in setting aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below and the appeal is allowed to restore the decree for specific performance.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment dated 03.02.2017 set aside; judgments of the trial Court and the first appellate Court restored; decree for specific performance restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Impugned judgment of the High Court dated 03.02.2017 set aside