Vendor failed to demarcate suit property and clear encumbrance s thereon - Held on facts that time was not essence of contract - Grant of specific relief in favour of vendee, proper. - If it is shown that party had sufficient means to mobilise the balance amount required within a short span of time, the same is sufficient.

Citation

AIR 2022 MADRAS 218

MADRAS HIGH COURT: AIROnline 2022 Mad 2087

V. M. VELUMANI, J. and S. SOUNTHAR, J.

A. S. No. 293 of 2016, D/-22-6-2022

T. P. Ponnusamy alias P. Jacob v. R. Devaraj.

(A)Contract Act (9 of 1872), S.55 - Time if essence of contract - Determination - Time, as an essence of contract is determined by conduct of parties and totality of circumstances and not by mere presence of forfeiture clause - Moreover, time is not essence of contract in sale agreement concerning immovable property Vendor not removing encumbrances on - land - Time to perform extended - Held on facts that time was not essence of contract.Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.20 - 

AIR 1993 SC 1742, Followed.

(B)Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), (Para 10.1)

S.20, S.16(c) - Contract Act (9 of 1872), S.55 Agreement for sale - Suit for specific performance - Vendor failed to demarcate suit property and clear encumbrance s thereon - Vendee had paid advance sale consideration and was willing to perform his part of contract - Extension of time of performance of contract indicated that time was not essence of contract - Grant of specific relief in favour of vendee, proper. -

AIROnline 2009 Mad 33, Distinguished.

(C)Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), (Para 11.6) S.16(c) - Readiness and willingness to perform Determination - If it is shown that party had sufficient means to mobilise the balance amount required within a short span of time, the same is sufficient. -