Facts of the Case
- A agreed to sell his immovable property to B under a written agreement of sale.
- B paid a substantial portion of the sale consideration at the time of the agreement.
- B committed to pay the remaining balance within one month.
- B made arrangements and showed readiness to pay the remaining balance and requested A to execute the sale deed.
- Due to an increase in the property’s market value, A refused to proceed with the registration and sale deed execution.
- B, being ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, sought legal recourse to enforce the agreement.
Issues in the Case
- Whether A’s refusal to execute the sale deed after accepting partial payment constitutes a breach of contract.
- Whether B, who is ready and willing to perform his contractual obligation, can enforce the sale agreement.
- Whether B is entitled to seek specific performance under the Civil Procedure Code and related provisions.
- What remedy is legally available to B under Indian civil law when the seller backs out without just cause.
Principles Associated with It
- Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code permits a person to file a civil suit for the enforcement of legal rights.
- Specific Relief Act, 1963, particularly Section 10, allows for specific performance of a contract involving immovable property.
- Courts treat contracts involving the sale of immovable property as unique and not adequately compensable by monetary damages.
- A party that is always ready and willing to perform its part of the agreement can enforce specific performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
- Time is not generally considered the essence of contracts involving the sale of immovable property unless explicitly stated.
Judgement
- B can institute a civil suit under Section 9 of CPC for specific performance of the contract.
- The court may direct A to execute the sale deed in favour of B upon B depositing the balance amount in court.
- If A still refuses, the court can appoint an officer to execute the sale deed on behalf of A under Order XX Rule 12 of the CPC.
- The court may also grant an injunction preventing A from selling the property to anyone else during the pendency of the suit.
- Courts, in similar cases like K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan and Surya Narain Upadhyay v. Ram Roop Pandey, have ruled in favour of the buyer when readiness and willingness were proven.