Important point
Basic principle behind Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act is that any person seeking benefit of Specific performance of contract must manifest that his conduct has been blemishless throughout entitling him to the specific relief.

Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 16(1)(c)—Suit for specific performance of contract—Trial Court held that requirements of Section 16(c) of the Act were not complied with and plaintiff was entitled to money paid only—High Court decreed suit holding that averments in plaint indicated readiness and willingness of plaintiff to fulfill his part of contract—Appeal—Any person seeking benefit of specific performance of contract must manifest that his conduct had been unblemished throughout—If pleadings manifested that conduct of plaintiff entitled him to get relief on perusal of plaint, relief could not be denied—Impugned judgment suffered no illegality.
       Held : The requirements to be fulfilled for bringing in compliance of the Section 16(c) of the Act have been delineated by this Court in several judgments. Before dealing with the various judgments it is necessary to set out the factual position. The agreement for sale was executed on 15.2.1978 and the period during which the sale was to be completed was indicated to be six months. Undisputedly, immediately after the expiry of the six months period lawyer’s notice was given calling upon the present appellant to execute the sale deed. It is also averred in the plaint that the plaintiff met the defendant several times and requested him to execute the sale deed. On finding inaction in his part, the suit was filed in September, 1978. This factual position has been highlighted in the plaint itself. Learned Single Judge after noticing the factual position as reflected in the averments in the plaint came to hold that the plaint contains essential facts which lead to inference to plaintiff’s readiness and willingness. Para 3 of the plaint indicates that the plaintiff was always ready to get the sale deed prepared after paying necessary consideration. In para 4 of the plaint reference has been made to the lawyer’s notice calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. In the said paragraph it has also been described as to how after the lawyer’s notice was issued plaintiff met the defendant. In para 5 it is averred that defendant is bound to execute the sale deed on receiving the balance amount and the plaintiff was entitled to get the document executed by the defendant. It is also not in dispute that the balance amount of the agreed consideration was deposited in Court simultaneously to the filing of the suit. (Para 9)
       The basic principle behind Section 16(c) read with Explanation (ii) is that any person seeking benefit of the specific performance of contract must manifest that his conduct has been blemishless throughout entitling him to the specific relief. The provision imposes a personal bar. The Court is to grant relief on the basis of the conduct of the person seeking relief. If the pleadings manifest that the conduct of the plaintiff entitles him to get the relief on perusal of the plaint he should not be denied the relief. Section 16(c) of the Act mandates the plaintiff to aver in the plaint and establish as the fact by evidence aliunde that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On considering almost identical fact situation it was held by this Court in Surya Narain Upadhyaya v. Ram Roop Pandey and Ors. (AIR 1994 SC 105) that the plaintiff had substantiated his plea. When the factual background is considered in the light of principles set out above, the inevitable conclusion is that the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Full Bench do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. (Paras 12 to 14)

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—The defendant in a suit for specific performance of contract questions correctness of the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court holding that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is entitled to a decree in the manner prayed for. Though the Trial Court held that the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short ‘the Act’) were not complied with and plaintiff was entitled only to the money paid, in appeal by the plaintiff, learned Single Judge of the High Court as well as in appeal before the Full Bench of the High Court, held otherwise. Plaintiff’s suit for specific performance was decreed.

2. The factual background as highlighted by the original plaintiff, who after his death was substituted by additional plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 (respondents herein) is essentially as follows:

The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of Ext. A1 agreement for sale. His case is that the defendant executed Ext. A1 agreement in his favour agreeing to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. An advance of Rs. 8,000/- was paid on the date of the agreement i.e. 15.2.1978. The period fixed for the execution of the sale deed was six months from the date of the agreement. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendant was not prepared to execute the sale deed. The defendant resisted the suit contending that though he executed Ext. A1 agreement in favour of the plaintiff, it was executed only as security for the amount paid by the plaintiff to him. It was also contended that the property covered by the agreement is owned by the defendant and his wife jointly and since the property has not been partitioned, the defendant had no legal right to enter into an agreement for the sale of the entire property. The defendant further pleaded that on 15.2.1978 itself, (Ext.B1) the plaintiff had executed an agreement in favour of the defendant agreeing not to enforce the specific performance of the agreement. On these contentions, the defendant wanted the suit to be dismissed.

3. The suit was originally decreed by the trial Court. On appeal filed by the defendant as A.S.No. 227/1980, the High Court set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and remanded the case for the purpose of considering the genuineness of Ext. B1 document. After remand Ext.B1 agreement was sent for expert opinion and Ext.C1 report was obtained. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was not the author of Ext. B1 and Ext.A1 agreement was not executed as security for the repayment of the amount advanced, as contended by the defendant. But, the trial Court denied the relief of specific performance of the contract on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to plead and prove that he is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, the plaintiff was given a decree for realization of a sum of Rs. 8,000/- paid as advance with 6% interest per annum from 15.2.1978. Dissatisfied with the decree, the additional plaintiffs 2 to 5 filed appeal before the High Court.

4. Learned Single Judge held that the averments in the plaint clearly indicate readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to fulfill his part of contract. It was held that the plaint contains essential facts which lead to inference of plaintiff’s readiness and willingness. In the appeal before the Full Bench of the High Court several points were raised. Ultimately, however, the challenge was restricted to the question whether the learned Single Judge’s view in the background of Section 16(c) of the Act was correct. The High Court held that the same was in order.

5. Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that both the learned Single Judge and the Full Bench considered the true scope and ambit of Section 16(c) of the Act. According to him the requirements were mandatory and the averments in the plaint should clearly establish that the pl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1231

Important pointBasic principle behind Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act is that any person seeking benefit of Specific performance of contract must manifest that his conduct has been blemishless throughout entitling him to the specific relief.

Cases Referred (5)

Important point
Basic principle behind Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act is that any person seeking benefit of Specific performance of contract must manifest that his conduct has been blemishless throughout entitling him to the specific relief.