U.N. KRISHNAMURTHY (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS. versus A. M. KRISHNAMURTHY

U.N. KRISHNAMURTHY (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS. versus A. M. KRISHNAMURTHY

The respondent failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 because he did not demonstrate availability of funds or arrangements to pay the balance consideration by the stipulated date; a deposit of the balance in court seven years after the due date does not establish readiness at the relevant time; consequently he was not entitled to discretionary equitable relief of specific performance and the concurrent decrees were set aside.

Parties
Appellant: U.N. Krishnamurthy (since deceased) through LRs; Respondent: A. M. Krishnamurthy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Final Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras Challenging Grant of Specific Performance
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the High Court and judgment and decree of the Trial Court set aside
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Readiness and Willingness to Perform, Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963, Deposit of Consideration, Delay and Laches, Judicial Discretion in Equitable Relief
Contract Property Equity Civil Procedure Specific Performance Readiness and Willingness to Perform Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 Deposit of Consideration +2 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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

U.N. Krishnamurthy (since deceased) through LRs

Appellant

A. M. Krishnamurthy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Final Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras Challenging Grant of Specific Performance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent/plaintiff proved continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract
  2. 2 Whether deposit of balance consideration in court after seven years establishes readiness to perform
  3. 3 Whether the relief of specific performance was properly granted given the small earnest money and delay in filing suit

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 because he did not demonstrate availability of funds or arrangements to pay the balance consideration by the stipulated date; a deposit of the balance in court seven years after the due date does not establish readiness at the relevant time; consequently he was not entitled to discretionary equitable relief of specific performance and the concurrent decrees were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the High Court and judgment and decree of the Trial Court set aside

Orders

  • Appellants shall return the earnest money to the respondent within 4 weeks from date of judgment with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund
  • It is open to the respondent to withdraw any deposit of the balance consideration in Court