VidhiSangh

Supreme Court of India · 28/03/2018

P. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM versus P. VIJAYAKUMAR & ANR.

[2018] 6 S.C.R. 667 · 2018 INSC 289

AI-generated headnote. Verify against the judgment before relying on it. Paragraph numbers refer to the judgment.

Summary

The Supreme Court dismissed the purchaser’s specific-performance claim for failure to establish continuous readiness and willingness, and allowed the vendor’s counterclaim for possession. The purchaser knew of the bank encumbrance, yet did not take the steps required to complete payment or discharge the loan. The vendor was to refund Rs. 18 lakh within three months and receive vacant possession within one month. Balancing use of the advance against lost property income, the Court denied pre-default interest and mesne profits, with 7.5 per cent interest if refund was late.

Issues

  1. Whether the purchaser established continuous readiness and willingness despite knowledge of the encumbrance.
  2. Whether the concurrent specific-performance findings could stand on the record.
  3. How possession, refund, interest and mesne profits should be adjusted.

Held

Result

Appeals allowed; specific-performance suit dismissed and counterclaim for possession allowed. Possession due within one month; Rs. 18 lakh refund within three months, with 7.5 per cent interest thereafter on default. No mesne profits; parties bear their own costs throughout.

Judgment PDF: Supreme Court of India, [2018] 6 S.C.R. 667.