2017 Supreme(SC) 213

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Mrs. A. Kanthamani - Appellant
Versus
Mrs. Nasreen Ahmed - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2714 of 2008
Decided On : 06-03-2017

IMPORTANT POINTS
Plaint for specific relief must conform to Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act, 1963 r/w Article 54, Schedule, Limitation Act, 1963.
Supreme Court would be loath to undertake appreciation of evidence u/Art. 136, more so in case of concurrent findings of the courts below.
When plaintiff proved her readiness and willingness to perform and her financial capacity to purchase the suit property and in fact had paid more than 50% of sale consideration before the due date, court below were right in passing decree in favour of plaintiff.

Headnote:(a) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) r/w Article 54, Schedule, Limitation Act, 1963 – Readiness and willingness to perform – Plaint seeking relief of specific performance of the agreement/contract must contain all requirements of Section 16(c) r/w requirements contained in Form Nos. 47 and 48 of Appendix ‘A’ of C.P.C. – The Plaint should have necessary pleading as to limitation of 3 years from the date fixed by the parties for the performance; or when plaintiff noticed refusal of the performance. (Para 26, 27)

       AIR 1928 PC 208 – Referred

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appreciation of evidence – Court should be loath to undertake the exercise – More so in case of concurrent findings of the courts below. (Para 32)

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Maintainability of appeal – Issue of maintainability neither raised in the written statement nor in first appeal – Not even in the grounds of instant appeal – Suit filed within limitation period as per Article 54, Limitation Act, 1963 – Raising issue of maintainability in Supreme Court for the first time – Not permissible.. (Para 36, 37, 38, 40)

       (2013) 15 SCC 27 – Distinguished

       (d) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) – Readiness and willingness to perform – Execution of agreement not disputed – Plaintiff proving her readiness and willingness to perform and her financial capacity to purchase the suit property – Plaintiff paying more than 50% of sale consideration before the due date – Court below rightly passing decree in favour of plaintiff. (Para 43)

       

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant-defendant is the owner of the property in question. She entered into an agreement for sale with the respondent-plaintiff on 05.03.1989 in respect of a part of ground floor of the said property described in Schedule ‘B’ to the plaint together with 1/3rd undivided share in the property described in Schedule ‘A’ for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,43,200/-. On the same day, a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- was paid by the respondent as advance money to the appellant. Thereafter, the respondent paid Rs. 20,000/- towards sale consideration to the appellant on 03.04.1989, Rs. 10,000/- on 04.05.1989, Rs. 15,000 on 03.07.1989, Rs. 15,000/- on 06.07.1989 and Rs. 16,000/- on 16.08.1989. So far as the balance amount was concerned, the respondent agreed to pay the same on or before 31.12.1989 to the appellant. It was alleged that the appellant also orally agreed to sell to the respondent an additional area of 132.25 sq.ft. at the ground floor and 4 of undivided share and for that additional property, the respondent paid a sum of Rs.46,000/- as an advance money.

       On 10.11.1989, the respondent sent a draft sale deed to the appellant for an area measuring 847.25 sq.ft. and one 1/2 undivided share. The appellant refused to do so and returned the draft sale deed on 04.12.1989 for approval of the respondent by treating the sum of Rs.46,000/-paid by her for additional extent as further advance for the earlier written agreement.

       Thereafter on 15.12.1989, the appellant sent another draft sale deed for approval of the respondent by removing clauses 18 and 27 and with minor changes.

       The respondent approved the second draft sale deed and sent it to the appellant on 28.12.1989 by speed post and also enclosed a letter from the LIC sanctioning loan of Rs.1 lakh in her favour. The respondent further informed that she is willing to bring the balance of sale consideration at the time of registration of the sale deed.

       On 30.12.1989, the respondent sent a legal notice through her advocate calling upon the appellant to execute and register the sale deed on or before 10.01.1990 in her favour.

       By letter dated 03.01.1990 through her advocate, the appellant refused to sell the property to the respondent and cancelled the agreement.

       The respondent then filed a suit against the appellant on 10.01.1990 seeking specific performance of the agreement.

       The Trial Court decreed the respondent’s suit and passed the decree for specific performance of the agreement against the appellant.

       The High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal and confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.

       Result: Appeal dismissed with cost.