2009 Supreme(SC) 1680

2009(7) Supreme 201
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and Aftab Alam,JJ.
A.K. Lakshmipathy (Dead) & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Rai Saheb Pannalal H. Lahoti CharitableTrust & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7208 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP) No. 17630 OF 2005)
Decided on : 28-10-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
In an agreement for sale of immoveable properties, the readiness and willingness of the parties to perform their part of the contract is essential.
2. It is well settled that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, it has to be proved that the plaintiff who is seeking for a decree for specific performance of the contract for sale must always be ready and willing to complete the terms of the agreement for sale and that he has not abandoned the contract and his intention is to keep the contract subsisting till it is executed.

Headnote:Specific performance of contract – Suit for agreement to sell filed by appellant –Dismissed by Trial Court, holding that appellants by insisting upon trustees to perform additional conditions were not ready and willing to perform their part of contract and also held that time was not the essence of the contract – Appeal – Dismissed by High Court affirming decree of Trial Court and holding that time was the essence of the contract- Special Leave Petition – It is well settled that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, it has to be proved that the plaintiff who is seeking for a decree for specific performance of the contract for sale must always be ready and willing to complete the terms of the agreement for sale and that he has not abandoned the contract and his intention is to keep the contract subsisting till it is executed – This readiness and willingness on the part of the appellants in the facts and circumstances of the case, could not be found in favour of the appellants – Instantly , not only the trial court as well as the High Court on concurrent findings of fact and on consideration of the evidence on record came to conclusion that the appellants were not ready and willing to perform the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale-Appellants sought clarifications regarding the joining of all trustees in execution of the sale deed, asking the second respondent to enter into another agreement by way of indemnifying the appellants for any loss due to defect in the title, etc – No justification to say in the facts and circumstances of the case that the demands of the appellants were justified and reasonable – If the final ultimatum by the seller has been given for payment of balance amount then the best thing for the purchasers is to pay the amount and then take appropriate steps- Appellants having failed to do so, they could not be allowed to take advantage of their own mistake and conveniently pass the blame to the respondents – High Court rightly confirmed the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below on the question of readiness and willingness on the part of the appellants to complete the agreement for sale – Impugned judgment of High Court affirmed so far as the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale was concerned – Appeal allowed (Paras 18 to 20)

        Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 55 – Applicability of – A plain reading of said provision shows that documents of title relating to the property in respect of which agreement for sale was entered into must be in the possession or power of the seller which should be produced to the buyer for examination – So far as the present case was concerned, the condition regarding the clearance or exemption from the Endowment Department was not a document of title relating to the property which would benefit the buyer for examination for the purpose of completing the agreement for sale. Section 55(1) of Act held inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of instant case (Para 13)

       Facts of the Case :

        Suit for Specific performance of contract for agreement to sell filed was filed by appellant herein in the instant case. Said suit was Dismissed by Trial Court, holding that appellants by insisting upon trustees to perform additional conditions were not ready and willing to perform their part of contract and also held that time was not the essence of the contract. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court affirming decree of Trial Court.

        2. Present Special Leave Petition has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Instantly , not only the trial court as well as the High Court on concurrent findings of fact and on consideration of the evidence on record came to conclusion that the appellants were not ready and willing to perform the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale. Appellants sought clarifications regarding the joining of all trustees in execution of the sale deed, asking the second respondent to enter into another agreement by way of indemnifying the appellants for any loss due to defect in the title, etc. No justification to say in the facts and circumstances of the case that the demands of the appellants were justified and reasonable. If the final ultimatum by the seller has been given for payment of balance amount then the best thing for the purchasers is to pay the amount and then take appropriate steps. Appellants having failed to do so, they could not be allowed to take advantage of their own mistake and conveniently pass the blame to the respondents. High Court rightly confirmed the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below on the question of readiness and willingness on the part of the appellants to complete the agreement for sale. Impugned judgment of High Court affirmed so far as the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale was concerned.