Topic
A sale agreement in Indian law is a contract for the transfer of property, where specific performance may be sought under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act if readiness and willingness are proven.
The Madras HC held that a claim for refund of a Rs 2 lakh advance under a 2004 sale agreement is barred once the three-year period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act lapses. Since Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act creates a charge only after sale completion, buyers must sue within that window or forfeit the advance.
West Bengal SCDRC ruled that a buyer who purchases a flat after a prior agreement’s cancellation is a consumer under CPA 2019. It directed developers to execute the pending deed of conveyance, pay Rs 1 lakh compensation and comply within eight weeks. The order expands consumer protection in sale-deed registration matters.
The Kerala High Court ruled that a plaintiff’s readiness to perform under a sale agreement cannot be assumed merely because prior advances were made-explicit contractual terms govern performance obligations. This sets a critical precedent for property buyers and sellers, reinforcing that contractual specificity overrides informal adjustments in specific performance claims.
Bombay HC Nagpur Bench rules that a plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform a sale agreement is established by demonstrating funds availability, filing an affidavit, and issuing timely notices-even if the plaintiff purchased adjacent land at a lower price. The ruling reinforces that equitable relief under the Specific Relief Act hinges on substantive compliance, not minor price discrepancies.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a registered sale agreement remains enforceable for specific performance if 96% of the consideration was paid, even if legal heirs challenge it posthumously. The court emphasized that documentary evidence prevails over unsupported oral testimony, reinforcing the binding nature of duly executed agreements in property disputes.
Madras High Court rules that a plaintiff seeking specific performance of a sale agreement must prove financial readiness to pay the balance consideration, not just assert willingness. The judgment clarifies that Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act requires tangible evidence of funds, setting a stricter standard for enforcement of contracts.
Madras High Court rules that when parties extend the agreement timeline by accepting further payments and depositing the balance in court, the 'time is essence' clause is waived. The court held that bank statements proving readiness and willingness, coupled with the deposit before filing the written statement, are decisive for specific performance.
Madras High Court rules that when a buyer has paid 95% of the sale consideration and is in possession of the property, the doctrine of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act does not bar specific performance. The ruling clarifies that substantial compliance with payment and possession suffices for enforcing sale agreements, even if the balance is paid post-suit.
The Madras High Court held that a sale agreement executed merely as security for a loan cannot be enforced as a contract of sale under the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff is entitled only to repayment of the advance with interest, not the execution of the sale. This ruling clarifies the distinction between a genuine sale agreement and one created as collateral for financial transactions.
The Madras High Court ruled that a plaintiff seeking specific performance of a sale agreement must conclusively prove readiness and willingness to pay within contractual deadlines. Failure to do so disentitles the plaintiff from the equitable relief of specific performance, though a money decree for advance payments may still be granted. This judgment reinforces the burden of proof on plaintiffs in property disputes under the Specific Relief Act.