B. SANTOSHAMMA & ANR. versus D. SARALA & ANR.

B. SANTOSHAMMA & ANR. versus D. SARALA & ANR.

The vendee was ready and willing and had performed obligations; the vendor failed to prove the alleged condition that the vendee must procure cancellation of the prior agreement with P. Pratap Reddy; because title to 100 sq. yards had validly passed to P. Pratap Reddy and relief against him was barred by limitation/non-joinder, the courts rightly decreed specific performance in part for the remaining 200 sq. yards and adjusted the consideration proportionately (reducing by the price of the 100 sq. yards). The High Court judgment affirming the Trial Court was therefore upheld and the appeals dismissed.

Parties
Appellant Vendor: B. Santoshamma; Appellant Co Vendor/husband: B. Darshan Reddy; Respondent Vendee: D. Sarala; Respondent Transferee (proforma): P. Pratap Reddy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against High Court Judgment Affirming Trial Court Decree
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; High Court judgment and Trial Court decree affirmed
Legal Topics
Readiness and Willingness to Perform, Specific Performance in Part (s.12 Sra), Effect of Amendment to S.10 SRA, Necessary Parties to Suit for Specific Performance, Order II Rule 2 CPC (bar of Subsequent Suit), Clubbing of Suits, Limitation (limitation Act, Item 54), Registration Priority (s.50 Registration Act)
Specific Performance Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Limitation Registration Law Equity Readiness and Willingness to Perform +7 more

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. Santoshamma

Appellant Vendor

B. Darshan Reddy

Appellant Co Vendor/husband

D. Sarala

Respondent Vendee

P. Pratap Reddy

Respondent Transferee (proforma)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against High Court Judgment Affirming Trial Court Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendee was ready and willing to perform the agreement dated 21.3.1984
  2. 2 Whether the agreement dated 21.3.1984 was subject to a condition that the vendee would get an earlier agreement with P. Pratap Reddy cancelled
  3. 3 Whether specific performance can be granted in part under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act where part of the subject matter has been validly transferred to a third party

Ratio Decidendi

The vendee was ready and willing and had performed obligations; the vendor failed to prove the alleged condition that the vendee must procure cancellation of the prior agreement with P. Pratap Reddy; because title to 100 sq. yards had validly passed to P. Pratap Reddy and relief against him was barred by limitation/non-joinder, the courts rightly decreed specific performance in part for the remaining 200 sq. yards and adjusted the consideration proportionately (reducing by the price of the 100 sq. yards). The High Court judgment affirming the Trial Court was therefore upheld and the appeals dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; High Court judgment and Trial Court decree affirmed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed by the Supreme Court
  • Judgment and order of the High Court dated 07.09.2006 affirmed