Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Kar) 229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Jyoti Mulimani, J.
Kumari Manjula and ors. - Appellants
Versus
Smt. R.Yellamma and ors. - Respondents
Regular First Appeal No. 1668 of 2016 (SP)
Decided On : 27-06-2025

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. C.S.Prem Kumar., Advocate For Sri. Vijaya Krishna Bhat.M., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. Jaykishan Sharma & Sri. Gopal Singh., Advocates For Sri. Nataraj., Advocate

Plaintiffs must prove readiness and willingness for specific performance; financial capacity may be demonstrated through means to secure funds, not necessarily possession of cash.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act - Section 16(c) - Dismissal of suit for specific performance - Plaintiffs entered into a sale agreement and paid part of the consideration but defendants contended they did not execute the agreement knowingly - The law holds that a plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness, which does not necessarily require availability of funds at the exact moment of contract execution - Financial capacity can be demonstrated through arrangements to secure funds. (Paras 6, 7, and 9)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance after defendants delayed executing a sale deed, claiming they were not ready and willing despite having paid part of the sale consideration and issued legal notices for compliance.

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court’s judgment and decree dismissing the suit was set aside, with the plaintiffs proven ready and willing to perform the contract and no evidence demonstrated to the contrary. The defendants were ordered to execute the sale deed upon receipt of balance consideration.

Issues: The main issues were the sufficiency of evidence to prove the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations, and the defendants' assertions that the agreement was obtained through misrepresentation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiffs had adequately proven their readiness and willingness for specific performance, emphasizing that financial arrangements need not be disclosed to demonstrate compliance with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, as readiness can be shown by one’s capacity to secure funds.

Result: The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs; the defendants must execute the sale deed on receiving outstanding consideration.

Table of Content
1. procedural introduction and status of the parties (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. execution of sale agreement and part payment outlined (Para 4)
3. appellant's contention of trial court errors (Para 5)
4. respondent's defense against plaintiff's readiness (Para 6)
5. discussion on readiness and willingness as legal concepts (Para 7 , 8)
6. judgment on being ready and willing as sufficient for performance (Para 9 , 10)
7. final decree and order (Para 11)

JUDGMENT :

Jyoti Mulimani, J.

Sri.C.S.Prem Kumar, counsel on behalf of Sri.Vijaya Krishna Bhat, M., for the appellants and Sri.Jay Kishan Sharma and Sri.Gopal Singh, counsel for respondents 1 to 4, and Sri. Nataraj, counsel for respondents 5(B to D), have appeared in person.

2. This is an appeal from the Court of XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City.

3. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court.

4. The plaint averments are these:

The defendants are the owners in possession and enjoyment of a residential house property bearing Site No.52, Municipal No.7, measuring East - West 25 feet North - South 30 feet, consisting of ground, first and second floor situated at 6^th cross road, 2^nd street, Kempapura Agrahara, Bengaluru. The defendants, for their legal necessity, jointly and severally offered to sell the said property to the plaintiff for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- and executed a registered sale agreement on 21.11.2005 and received Rs. 7,00,000/- on the same day from the plaintiff towards part payment of sale consideration.

As per the terms of the agreement, the defendants agreed to execute a registered sale deed in favor of the plaintiff within 24 months from the date of the sale agreement. The defendants also handed over title deeds and other relevant documents to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and to get the sale deed registered in their favor by paying the balance sale consideration amount. However, the defendants postponed the same on one or another pretext. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to issue a legal notice on 24.03.2007 calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed. However, the said notice was returned as unserved. Thereafter, the notice issued under a certificate of posting was served on the defendants. Despite the same, the defendants neither complied with the notice nor gave a reply. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to take shelter under the Court of law and filed a suit for the relief of specific performance.

After service of the suit summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed a common written statement asserting that they are the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property. They denied the execution of the sale agreement and denied the receipt of amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. Urging other contentions, the defendants specifically contended that they needed money; hence, they intended to mortgage the property, and one Mr.Anand Kumar took them to the sub-registrar office and, without explaining the contents of the papers, got them to sign the documents. The defendants contended that they were under the impression that they were executing a mortgage deed; however, they came to know that it was an agreement for sale. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. The parties led evidence and documents were exhibited. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 14.09.2016 dismissed the suit. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal under Section 96 of the CPC.

5. Counsel Sri.C.S.Prem Kumar, for the appellants, submits that the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is contrary to the law and documentary and oral evidence on record.

Next, he submits that the Trial Court seriously erred in dismissing the suit by holding that the plaintiffs had no financial capacity to pay the balance