Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1586
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Nitin Prabhakar Bhagawat – Appellant
Versus
Keshav Mansing Salunkhe – Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 4334 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11347 of 2024)
Decided on : 24-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Advocate, Ms. Anisha Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Anchit Singla, Advocate, Mr. Sharath Bk, Advocate and Mr. Kanishk Sinha, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Kishor Lambat, Advocate, Ms. Kashmira Lambat, Advocate, Ms. Suja Joshi, Advocate, Mr. Prem S Mankani, Advocate, M/S. Lambat & Legiteam, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16 - Agreement for sale - Interpretation of time limitation for execution of sale deed - Sale deed executed for land for Rs.7 lakh; dispute arose as to whether the deed should have been executed in three or four months - Plaintiff failed to show readiness and willingness; notice for cancellation issued by defendant - High Court ruled time was not the essence of contract, which was contested by appellant - Appeal allowed, with High Court's ruling set aside. (Paras 3-6)
(B) Readiness and willingness - Essential criteria for specific performance - Failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform contract obligations deemed significant and detrimental to the plaintiff’s claims. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The appellant and respondent entered into an agreement for sale of land where Rs.6 lakh was paid and balance was to be paid later. The plaintiff did not execute the sale deed timely, leading to the defendant canceling the agreement before the suit was filed two years later, which was dismissed for lack of readiness and willingness.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to pay and to execute the deed within designated time frames was critical to the dismissal of the suit. \n
Issues: Whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract within the stipulated timeframe as inferred from the agreement.\n
Ratio Decidendi: The ruling established that time was indeed the essence of the contract as no timely action was demonstrated by the plaintiff to maintain the agreement, thus justifying the defendant's cancellation notice and subsequent appeal results.\n
Result: Appeal allowed. High Court order set aside requiring return of Rs.6 lakh to the plaintiff with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over contract execution time. (Para 3) |
| 2. time is presumed to be essence of contract. (Para 4) |
| 3. appeal allowed; refund ordered with interest. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal arises out of a pure civil proceeding where an agreement for sale was executed between the appellant/defendant (owner of the plot) and the respondent/plaintiff on 06.03.2012 for sale of a piece of land on a consideration of Rupees seven lakh, out of which Rupees six lakh was paid to the appellant and the balance to be paid at the time of execution of the agreement for sale deed. The two different interpretations has been given by both plaintiff and the defendant as to the time within which the sale deed was executed; can be either four months or three months as per the sale deed. The admitted fact is that the sale deed was not executed within four months. There was no notice on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant to comply with the agreement to sell. On the contrary it was only the defendant who gave notice to the plaintiff for cancelling the agreement to sell on 25.04.2013; prior to filing of the suit. Consequent upon it after a period of two years a suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff/respondent. The suit was dismissed on 02.03.2016 on the grounds that time was the essence of the contract and there was no readiness & willingness on the part of the plaintiff established. The matter was taken up in appeal which was also dismissed on 30.11.2019 and consequently, the matter reached the High Court in second appeal where the substantial question of law was framed as follows: -
'Whether the finding of the Learned Trial Court as confirmed by the Learned First Appellate Court that the Plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness is contrary to the evidence on record.'
4. The High Court came to the conclusion that time was actually not the essence of the Contract after looking at the agreement to sell; which provided for three months' time, in words and the date shown in figures indicated four months from the date of execution of the agreement to sell. As we noticed even, after the expiry of four months the plaintiff did not show his readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration to get executed the sale deed. The plaintiff, if at all, could have taken the longer period of four months for paying the balance consideration and it cannot be held that time was not the essence of the Contract. It was after nine months of expiry of the longer period of four months provided in the agreement that the defendant issued notice to the plaintiff. A suit for specific performance was filed two years later. The readiness and willingness also were not established. We are hence totally in agreement with the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/defendant before this Court who argued that the Second Appellate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in Second Appeal.
5. Under these circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 12.02.2024 of the High Court.
6. The appellant shall return the amount of Rupees six lakh to the respondent/plaintiff within a period of four weeks from today along with a simple interest of 7% per annum.
7. All pending applications stand disposed of.
