SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 255

2000(1) Supreme 319
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
S.P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde and Ruma Pal, JJ.
Ram Awadh (dead) by LRs. & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Achhaibar Dubey & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4955 of 1999
Decided on 1-2-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Advocate and Parmanand Gaur and Ms. Priya Rao, Achintya Dvivedi, Advocates.
For the Respondents : B.D. Agarwala, Sr. Advocate, Anish Dayal, Ms. Manjula Gupta, Advocates.

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
In a suit for specific performance, subsequent purchaser can plead and defend that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of agreement at all material time.

Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963-Section 16(c)-Specific performance of sale agreement-Readyness and willingness on part of plaintiff-Defendant s defence that plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of agreement at all material time-Plea available not only to vendor defendant but also to subsequent purchaser-Jugraj Singh & Anr. v. Labh Singh & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 31 : Overruled.

       Held : The obligation imposed by Section 16 is upon the Court not to grant specific performance to a plaintiff who has not met the requirements of clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof. A Court may not, therefore, grant to a plaintiff who has failed to aver and to prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement the specific performance whereof he seeks. There is, therefore, no question of the plea being available to one defendant and not another. It is open to any defendant to contend and establish that the mandatory requirement of Section 16(c) has not been complied with and it is for the court to determine whether it has or has not been complied with and, depending upon its conclusion, decree or decline to decree the suit. (Para 5)

       

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court holds that a plaintiff must aver and prove readiness and willingness to perform to obtain specific performance; failure disqualifies relief. (!) - Any defendant may contend that the plaintiff did not meet the mandatory requirement of Section 16(c); the court must determine compliance and may grant or deny decree accordingly. (!) - The judgment remands the suit to the trial court to decide whether the original plaintiff and their legal representatives had proven readiness and willingness, and to decide the suit thereafter. (!) (!) - The plea that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform is not limited to the vendor/defendant and is available to any defendant. (!) - The decision overturns a prior judgment, noting that Jugraj Singh’s case is erroneous and requires remand for factual determination. (!) - The appeal is allowed, and the suit is remanded for expeditious decision within six months. (!)

What is the remedy for a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance where the plaintiff has not averred or proven readiness and willingness to perform the contract?

What constitutes compliance with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and who may raise the plea that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform?

What is the effect of remanding the suit to determine whether the original plaintiff and their representatives proved readiness and willingness, and the appropriate course for trial?


JUDGMENT

Bharucha, J.-This appeal stands referred to a Bench of three Judges because the two learned Judges who heard it earlier found difficulty in following the judgment of a Bench of two learned Judges in Jugraj Singh & Anr. v. Labh Singh & Ors.1.

2. It is not necessary to go into any great detail insofar as the facts are concerned. The appellants before us are the legal representatives of a subsequent purchaser of certain property. They were defendants to a suit by one Bachna for specific performance of an earlier agreement to sell that property to her. She had not pleaded in her plaint that she was ready willing to perform her part of the agreement, but that plea was later introduced by way of an amendment. The question now is in regard to whether she or her legal representatives were, in fact, at all material times ready and willing to perform their part of that agreement. The first appellate Court declined to permit the present appellants to plead and contend that Bachna and her legal representatives were never prepared to perform their part of the agreement and, for this purpose, it relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jugraj Singh. The High Court, in second appeal, affirmed that view.

3. In Jugraj Singh s case, upon substantially similar facts, this Court noted Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and the dictum of the Privy Council in Ardeshir H. Mama v. Flora Sasson2 that in a suit for specific performance the averment of readiness and willingness on the plaintiff s part, upto the date of the decree, was necessary. It also noted that this Court in Gomathinayagam Pillai v. Palaniswami Nadar3 had held that it was for the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance "to establish that he was, since the date of the contract, continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. If he fails to do so, his claim for specific performance must fail." Jugraj Singh s case, however, held:

"That plea is specifically available to the vendor/defendant. It is personal to him. The subsequent purchasers have got only the right to defend their purchase on the premise that they have no prior knowledge of the agreement of sale with the plaintiff. They are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. Though they are necessary parties to the suit, since any decree obtained by the plaintiff would be binding on the subsequent purchasers, the plea that the plaintiff must always be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract must be available only to the vendor or his legal representatives, but not to the subsequent purchasers."

4. The decision in Jugraj Singh s case was noted by a Bench of two learned Judges in Lakhi Ram v. Trikha Ram4 and doubted, but the appeal there was decided on another point.

Section 16 of the Specific Performance Act reads:

"16. Personal bars to relief.-Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person-

(a) x x x x x x x

(b) x x x x x x x

(c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant."

5. The obligation imposed by Section 16 is upon the Court not to grant specific performance to a plaintiff who has not met the requirements of clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof. A Court may not, therefore, grant to a plaintiff who has failed to aver and to prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement the specific performance whereof he seeks. There is, therefore, no question of the plea being available to one defendant and not another. It is open to any defendant to contend and establish that the mandatory requirement of Section 16(c) has not been complied with and it is for the court to determine whether it has or has not been complied with and, dependin





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top