Vimala Sneham v. Babu Joseph

Vimala Sneham v. Babu Joseph

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Specific Performance of Sale Agreement – Readiness and Willingness – Time as Essence of Contract – Termination of Agreement – Maintainability of Suit – In case the agreement was terminated by the seller, there should be a prayer for declaration that the termination of the agreement for sale is bad in law, or that it does not bind the plaintiff and in the absence of such a prayer, the suit filed for specific performance will not be maintainable. (Para 24)

The appellants/defendants challenged the trial court’s decree granting specific performance of a sale agreement dated 15.01.2007 for a property of 11.77 cents, for a consideration of Rs.10.75 lakhs, with Rs.5.75 lakhs paid by the respondent/plaintiff by 27.03.2007. The appellants contended that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part within the stipulated three-month period, that time was the essence of the contract, and that the suit was not maintainable without a prayer for declaration against the termination of the agreement. The plaintiff argued he was always ready and willing, had complied with the terms, and that the defendants defaulted by failing to execute the sale deed despite redeeming the property’s mortgage.

Held: The plaintiff demonstrated readiness and willingness by paying Rs.5.75 lakhs, preparing the sale deed, purchasing stamp paper worth Rs.1.45 lakhs, and attending the Sub Registrar’s Office on 25.05.2007 with the balance consideration, as per the defendants’ reply notice (Ext.A3). The defendants’ conduct, including offering an extension till 25.05.2007 in Ext.A3 and failing to appear, indicated they extended the contract period, negating the argument that time was the essence of the contract. The absence of a prayer for declaration against termination was not fatal, as the agreement was not specifically rescinded, and the suit’s maintainability was upheld per A. Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed (2017) 4 SCC 654 and Kandasamy R v. T.R.K. Saraswathy (2025) 3 SCC 513. The trial court’s decree was justified, as the plaintiff’s inability to perform was due to the defendants’ default. The appellants’ argument of unjust enrichment due to increased property value was rejected, as the delay was caused by their breach. Appeal dismissed with costs.

Citations: 2025 KER 42781 : 2025 (6) KLR 171 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2131
Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Coram: C. Pratheep Kumar, J.
RFA No. 725 of 2008, Decided on: 17th June 2025
Counsel for Appellants: Sri. M.V. Bose, Sri. Vinod Madhavan, Smt. P.M. Mazna Mansoor, Smt. Nisha Bose
Counsel for Respondent: Smt. Meena A., Sri. T. Krishnanunni (Sr.), Shri. C. Dilip, Sri. Vinod Ravindranath, Smt. M.R. Mini, Sri. Ashwin Sathyanath, Sri. K.C. Kiran, Shri. Anish Antony Anathazhath

Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *