That the respondent herein – original defendant entered into an agreement to sell with the appellant – original plaintiff on 13.07.2005 for a consideration of Rs.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-high-court-judgment-on-land-acquisition-proceedings/
The defendant through his advocate served a notice upon the plaintiff drawing the attention of the plaintiff with respect to the return/dishonour of the post-dated cheque vide notice dated 02.09.2005. That thereafter vide notice dated 18.10.2005
the plaintiff replied to the termination notice dated 23.09.2005 and called upon the defendant to accept the balance sale consideration within the agreed period i.e., on or before 12.01.2006. 35 lakhs was not paid as the post- dated cheque dated 25.08.2005 was returned and therefore, the defendant was justified in terminating the contract.
2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to pass the decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 13.07.2005, the plaintiff preferred RFA No.
By observing so, thereafter the High Court has observed once there was no concluded contract between the parties for sale of the suit property, the question whether there was readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration does not arise for consideration.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/final-decision-and-disclosure-in-collegium-meetings/
35 lakhs was returned which was towards part sale consideration and tendering the worthless post-dated cheque cannot be said to be tendering the payment and therefore, there was no concluded contract between the parties.
1
Now the findings and the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court refusing to pass a decree for specific performance is concerned it appears that though there was no specific issue framed by the learned Trial Court on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff, the Trial Court has given the findings on the same and has non-suited the plaintiff by observing that the plaintiff was not having sufficient funds to make the full balance consideration on or before 12.01.2006.
On the aforesaid ground the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit and refusing to pass the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell confirmed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the learned Trial Court to frame the specific issue with respect to the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff.
The learned Trial Court is directed to frame the specific issue on the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract and thereafter, the parties may be permitted to lead the evidence on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract and thereafter, the learned Trial Court to decide and dispose of the suit on merits and on the basis of the evidence that may be led. The aforesaid exercise be completed by the learned Trial Court on remand within a period of twelve months from the date of receipt of the present order.
Case Title: V.S. RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. P.M. MUHAMMED ALI (2022 INSC 1189)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008050-008051 / 2022
