The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by interfering with the first appellate court’s findings of fact, particularly regarding additional payment and the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness. The Court reiterated that time is not ordinarily the essence in immovable property contracts and that acceptance of further payment post-deadline constitutes a waiver of the right to forfeit earnest money, making the suit for specific performance maintainable without a separate declaratory relief.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, Annamalai, entered into a registered sale agreement dated 08.01.2010 with Saraswathi (D-1) and Dharmalingam (D-2) for two property items. The total consideration was Rs. 4,80,000, of which Rs. 4,70,000 was paid as advance, with the balance Rs. 10,000 to be paid within six months. Subsequently, D-1 and D-2 demanded an extra Rs. 2,00,000, to which Annamalai agreed and paid Rs. 1,95,000 on 09.06.2010, endorsed on the agreement. However, the vendors sent a termination notice on 20.08.2010 and had already sold the first property item to Vasanthi (D-3), Saraswathi’s daughter, on 17.08.2010. Annamalai sued for specific performance (O.S. No. 73/2010), while Vasanthi sued for declaration and injunction (O.S. No. 32/2011). The trial court dismissed Annamalai’s suit and decreed Vasanthi’s. The first appellate court reversed this, granting specific performance to Annamalai. The High Court, in second appeal, set aside the first appellate decree, directing refund of the advance money. The Supreme Court restored the first appellate court’s decree, holding the plaintiff was ready and willing, time was not the essence, and the acceptance of additional payment waived the right to terminate.
Procedural History:
The procedural history commenced with the filing of two original suits: O.S. No. 73 of 2010 by Annamalai for specific performance and O.S. No. 32 of 2011 (renumbered as O.S. No. 60 of 2012) by Vasanthi for declaration and injunction. The trial court consolidated the suits, dismissed Annamalai’s suit, and decreed Vasanthi’s suit. Annamalai’s first appeal was allowed, reversing the trial court’s judgment. Vasanthi and others then filed two second appeals (S.A. Nos. 465 & 466 of 2015) before the Madras High Court, which allowed them, setting aside the decree for specific performance and ordering a refund. The Supreme Court, upon appeal, allowed the civil appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the decree of the first appellate court.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence in Dowry Death Case: The Importance of Dying Declarations