Written submissions on behalf of plaintiff in suit for specific performance of agreement to sell
0 of 28 blanks filled
IN THE COURT OF Name and title of the judge, LD. DISTRICT JUDGE, Court complex and district details.
CS DJ NO.: Suit number OF Year of the suit number.
IN THE MATTER OF:
Plaintiff's name: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendants' names : DEFENDANTS
N.D.O.H.: Next date of hearing (N.D.O.H.)
INDEX
| S.No. | PARTICULARS | PAGE NO. |
| 1. | WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE PRESENT SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED Date of agreement to sell. |
PLACE: Place of filingFILED BY
DATED: Date of filing the submissions
Counsel's name
Counsel's address,
Mob. No. Counsel's mobile number
Email: Counsel's email address
IN THE COURT OF Name and title of the judge, LD. DISTRICT JUDGE, Court complex and district details.
CS DJ NO.: Suit number OF Year of the suit number.
IN THE MATTER OF:
Plaintiff's name: PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Defendants' names.: DEFENDANTS
N.D.O.H.: Next date of hearing (N.D.O.H.)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE PRESENT SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED Date of agreement to sell.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.That the plaintiff and the defendants entered into an Agreement to Sell dated Date of agreement to sell for the sale of the property situated at Suit property address (hereinafter referred to as "the Suit Property"). The said agreement was a legally binding contract executed between the parties in good faith, with the plaintiff as the purchaser and the defendants as the joint owners and sellers of the Suit Property.
2.That the total sale consideration agreed upon between the parties was Total sale consideration. In terms of the agreement, the plaintiff paid a token advance of Earnest money paid as earnest money. The agreement specifically stipulated that the balance amount of Balance amount due was payable on or before Date for payment of balance. Upon receipt of the said balance amount, the defendants were bound to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and to hand over possession of the Suit Property along with the original chain of property documents.
3.That on Date of first visit to property and Date of second visit to property, as stipulated, the plaintiff visited the Suit Property with a view to completing the payment and receiving the documents. The plaintiff came to tender the full and final payment and to inspect the actual position of the property, and requested the defendants to produce the original documents of title of the property. The defendants, however, did not permit the same. The plaintiff conveyed this to the property dealer, who thereafter approached the defendants. The defendants sought Number of days' extension requested by the defendants further time to shift their articles from the property, and a corresponding extension for execution of the sale documents, together with Time sought by the defendants to produce original property documents to produce the original property documents. The plaintiff, in good faith, consented to this extension while all along remaining willing to perform her part of the contract.
4.That the plaintiff was taken by surprise when the defendants sent a letter dated Date of defendants' forfeiture letter, alleging breach on the part of the plaintiff and claiming forfeiture of the earnest money. The plaintiff promptly responded by issuing a legal notice dated Date of plaintiff's legal notice, affirming her readiness to complete the transaction and calling upon the defendants to comply with the terms of the agreement. In reply thereto, the defendants sent a false and frivolous response to the said notice. Despite her efforts, including booking an appointment with the office of the Sub-Registrar, the defendants failed to perform their obligations. Consequently, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the present suit for specific performance.
5.That the plaintiff has unequivocally demonstrated her readiness and willingness to perform her obligations under the agreement. She had secured the necessary funds well before the due date and was prepared to conclude the transaction in accordance with its terms. Her conduct, including obtaining demand drafts and repeatedly communicating with the defendants, evidences her intention to fulfil her contractual duties.
6.In N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, (1995) 5 SCC 115, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff are essential conditions for the grant of specific performance, holding that "the conduct of the plaintiff must show his continuous readiness and willingness to complete the transaction." In the present case, the plaintiff's timely actions and communications clearly satisfy this requirement.
7.In Syed Dastagir v. T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty, (1999) 6 SCC 337, the Hon'ble Court observed that "readiness" implies the capacity to perform, while "willingness" implies the intention to perform. The plaintiff's financial arrangements and her immediate response to the defendants' purported breach establish both her readiness and her willingness.
8.That, despite the plaintiff's adherence to the terms of the agreement, the conduct of the defendants reveals a clear intention to evade their obligations. The letter dated Date of defendants' forfeiture letter issued by the defendants, shortly after they had sought an extension, indicates bad faith and an attempt to unjustly enrich themselves by forfeiting the plaintiff's earnest money. This act violates the spirit of the contractual obligations and demonstrates the defendants' lack of bona fides.
9.In K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan, (1997) 3 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the discretion to grant specific performance ought to be exercised in favour of a plaintiff who demonstrates willingness and bona fide adherence to the terms of the contract. This authority affirms that where a defendant shows a deliberate disregard for the terms of the contract, the courts are justified in enforcing specific performance.
10.In Surjit Kaur v. Naurata Singh, 2000 (2) SCC 217, the Hon'ble Court deprecated attempts by sellers to unfairly retain earnest money and to avoid performance of the contract, affirming that specific performance is an equitable remedy available to an aggrieved buyer.
11.That the defendants' claim of forfeiture of the earnest money is devoid of merit. The plaintiff has not breached any term of the agreement. On the contrary, the defendants unilaterally declared forfeiture despite the plaintiff's compliance and willingness to complete the sale. The action of the defendants in forfeiting the earnest money was therefore unjustified and in breach of the fundamental principles of the contract.
12.In Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co., AIR 1954 SC 44, the Hon'ble Court held that forfeiture of earnest money is justified only where a purchaser wilfully refuses to perform the contract. In the present case, the plaintiff has displayed continuous compliance, rendering the forfeiture by the defendants unlawful.
13.In Maula Bux v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 554, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that forfeiture clauses must be strictly construed and cannot be invoked arbitrarily. The plaintiff's willingness and conduct demonstrate her adherence to the contract, rendering the purported forfeiture legally unsustainable.
14.That the plaintiff invokes Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, under which a contract for the sale of immovable property may be specifically enforced, since monetary compensation is often inadequate to recompense the loss of a unique property interest. The reliance of the plaintiff upon the Suit Property as her chosen residence establishes her unique interest therein and strengthens her claim for specific performance.
15.That, in view of the plaintiff's adherence to and willingness under the agreement, and her readiness to complete the transaction, this Hon'ble Court is empowered to exercise its discretion in favour of specific performance. Equity and fairness demand that the defendants fulfil their part of the bargain rather than wrongfully forfeit the plaintiff's earnest money and retain possession of the Suit Property.
16.In Lachman Das v. Jagat Ram, AIR 2007 SC 1206, the Hon'ble Court reiterated that equity favours specific performance where the buyer has adhered to the contract, particularly in cases where the defendants act in bad faith.
17.In Ram Awadh (Dead) v. Achhaibar Dubey, (2000) 2 SCC 428, the Hon'ble Court reiterated that the courts lean towards enforcing specific performance in transactions relating to immovable property, especially where the plaintiff has substantially performed and the defendants seek to renege without justification.
18.That the conduct of the defendants not only constitutes a breach of contract but also evidences a deliberate attempt to evade their obligations, notwithstanding the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform its obligations under the agreement. As demonstrated above, the balance of equity lies in favour of the plaintiff, who has diligently complied with all aspects of the contract. It is, therefore, submitted that a decree of specific performance, together with the other reliefs sought, ought to be granted in the interests of justice and fairness.
In light of the aforementioned facts and submissions, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
a)pass a decree directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the Suit Property and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession thereof, in accordance with the agreement dated Date of agreement to sell;
b)pass an order directing the defendants to hand over the original documents of title of the property to the plaintiff, as agreed between the parties;
c)pass a decree for ₹Compensation amount (₹) as compensation for the mental agony and distress suffered by the plaintiff on account of the wrongful acts and breach of contract on the part of the defendants;
d)award the costs of the present suit to the plaintiff, having regard to the failure of the defendants to honour their obligations;
e)pass any other order or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the plaintiff.
PLACE: Place of filingFILED BY
DATED: Date of filing
Counsel's name
Counsel's address
Mob. No. Counsel's mobile number
Email: Counsel's email address