G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of an sale, dated 27-2-1984 executed by the Is defendant on behalf of his minor son d-2 for Rs. 1, 31,250/- in respect of the plaint schedule property or in the alternative for recovery of damages for Rs. 1,00,000/ -. The Subordinate Judge after having felt that many fictitious, false and vexatious suits for specific performance of contracts are being filed as a counterblast to some other cases pending in some other courts, directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance of consideration of about Rs. 1,25,000/ -. The counsel for the plaintiff also conceded before the subordinate Judge that it is the discretion of the court to direct deposit of the balance of sale consideration into court at any stage. Against that order directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance of the sale consideration, the plaintiff filed the present revision Petition.

( 2 ) SRI Kanyaka Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the stage for directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance of consideration will arise only in the event of the defendant s objection that the plaintiff has no capacity to pay the amount. Prior to the amendment, the Law was that there must be an allegation in the plaint that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In view of the legal position that has been emerged from the decisions of the various High Courts and the Supreme Court. Section 16 of the specific Relief Act has been amended.

( 3 ) SECTION 16 (c) of the Specific relief Act makes it obligatory for the plaintiff to aver in the plaint and also to prove that he has performed or has always been ready to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him.

( 4 ) IN G. Shivayya vs. Shivappa basappa (1) A I R. 1978 Kar. 98 the learned Judge took the view that the plaint, however, need not be followed by the actual deposit when a contract involves such payment, but there must be proper averments in the plaint regarding the plaintiff s willingness to perform his part of the contract followed by the evidence to prove it. It was further observed that the conduct of the plaintiff should not be anything other than his readiness to perform his part of the contract. In that case the learned Judge considered the averments that have been made in the plaint. After the amendment, it is common that in all the suits for specific performance, the allegations are to the effect that they are ready and willing to deposit that amount.

( 5 ) IN the case on hand, notice has been issued before filing the suit. That is not the stage for the defendant to raise objection about the incapacity of the plaintiff to pay the balance of the amount. The learned Judge further observed in the above cited case :"the fact that he has deposited the balance amount on 5th June 1970 is admitted, but it cannot be weighed in favour of the plaintiff since the deposit was made after about four and half years from the date of Ex. P-1. Ex. P-1 pescribed a period of one year for performing the contract. "

( 6 ) RAMASWAMY J, in United poineer Society vs Chand Beebi (2) 1986 (2) A P L J. 79 considered the effect of raising tha pleas with regard to averments in the plaint itself. It is wall-established that, in the absence of specific plea about the readiness for the performance of the contract, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

( 7 ) NOW we are concerned in this case about the direction given by the subordinate Judge for depositing the amount. The plaintiff alleged that he has got bank balance of about Rs. 1,50,000/- and he produced a certificate to that effect. The latest trend in filing false and vexatious suits for specific performance has been experienced by the subordinate Judge. The court has got ample power in spite of the averments contained in the plaint to direct the party to deposit the money in the event of entertaining a doubt about the bonafide natu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document