High Court Of Calcutta
Ramendra Mohan Datta, Hazra
GOPI NATH SEN - Appellant
Versus
BAHADURMUL DULICHAND - Respondent
A. F. O. D. 157 Of 1973
Decided On : 11/24/1978
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - DAMAGES IN LIEU OF - READINESS AND WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM - ABANDONMENT OF CLAIM FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - DAMAGES SIMPLICITER - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - SECTION 21, SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 73, CONTRACT ACT, 1872.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a partnership firm, filed a suit for specific performance of a contract dated October 20, 1964 against four defendants, namely, Gopinath Sen, Radha Nath Sen, Gorachand Sen, and Kamal Krishna Sen. The defendants agreed to let out the second floor with verandah of premises No. 40/a/2/a, Armenian Street, Calcutta, (hereinafter referred to as the premises) owned by the defendants, Gopinath Nath, Radha Nath, and Kamal Krishna, to the plaintiff firm as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 305/- per month according to English Calendar. The rent receipt was signed by Gopinath, Radha Nath, and Gorachand on account of advance rent for one month and it was given to the plaintiff firm. In the rent receipt, it was stated that construction would be done according to the plan approved by the Corporation on July 30, 1964 and possession would be given after construction by March 1, 1965 and tenancy would start from that day.
Finding of the Court:
1. The plaintiff, by abandoning the claim for specific performance at the trial, precluded itself from claiming damages in lieu of specific performance. 2. The plaintiff could not claim damages for breach of contract simpliciter in the plaint as framed. 3. The learned trial Judge erred in awarding damages in lieu of specific performance in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-. 4. The plaintiff's claim for damages under Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872, failed due to lack of proof.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff, by abandoning the claim for specific performance at the trial, precluded itself from claiming damages in lieu of specific performance? 2. Whether the plaintiff could claim damages for breach of contract simpliciter in the plaint as framed? 3. Whether the learned trial Judge erred in awarding damages in lieu of specific performance in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-? 4. Whether the plaintiff's claim for damages under Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872, failed due to lack of proof?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, damages in lieu of specific performance can only be awarded in cases where specific performance could have been granted but the Court, in its discretion, considers that it would be better to award damages instead. In the instant case, the plaintiff abandoned the claim for specific performance at the trial, thereby precluding itself from claiming damages in lieu of specific performance. 2. The plaintiff could not claim damages for breach of contract simpliciter in the plaint as framed because the claim for specific performance was still intact. The plaintiff should have sought amendment of the plaint to convert the suit into one for damages simpliciter before the trial began. 3. The learned trial Judge erred in awarding damages in lieu of specific performance in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- because the plaintiff had abandoned the claim for specific performance and was no longer entitled to damages in lieu thereof. 4. The plaintiff's claim for damages under Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872, failed due to lack of proof. The plaintiff did not prove that it was ready and willing to perform its part of the contract and the evidence of damages was speculative and remote.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the decree of the learned trial Judge was set aside. The appellants were ordered to pay the sum of Rs. 305/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization to the respondent No. 1 firm, Bahadurmull Dulichand. The cross-objection by respondent No. 1 was dismissed.
( 1 ) IT is settled law that the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance must be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract not only up to the date of the suit but at least upto the completion of the trial.
( 2 ) IN this case of specific performance in course of the trial Dulichand a partner of the respondent firm in course of bis examination in chief as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff was asked in question 71 as follows :--Q. "are you still ready and willing to take the lease from the defendant?" His answer was: "no. At present we claim the damage only". The question arose if this was permissible under the law. Could the plaintiff have waived or abandoned the claim for specific performance and claimed damages simpliciter in lieu thereof? Such a question arose in the case of Ardeshir Mama v. Flora Sassoon 55 Ind App 360; (AIR 1928 PC 208 ). In that case also the plaintiff by his conduct debarred himself from the relief of specific performance and tried to convert the suit for specific performance into that of a suit for damages. The question is: has the plaintiff such power to convert the suit for specific performance into that of a suit for damages simpliciter.
( 3 ) IN my opinion, the principle under which damages will be awarded under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act will be different from the principle involved in damages which will be awarded in lieu of specific performance. In the case of damages in lieu of specific performance the same does not result directly or consequentially from out of a breach of a contract as is the cask under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act. There might be circumstances when the plaintiff might be entitled to specific per-formance but the Court in its discretion might find that in the special facts of the case the plaintiff should not be awarded specific performance of the contract; but if damages would be awarded in lieu or in substitution thereof then that would amount to granting of a suitable relief. In other words the Court must be in a position to consider that the plaintiff was otherwise entitled to claim specific performance. If that condition would not be fulfilled then there could be no question of the court's exercising that power of granting relief by way of damages in lieu thereof. The expression "in lieu of specific performance" means and signifies that the relief by way of damages is granted in place of specific performance or in substitution thereof so that adequate relief might be awarded to the plaintiff who was otherwise entitled to such specific performance. Once the plaintiff would abandon his case of specific performance then that would be an end of the matter so far as the relief by way of damages in lieu of specific performance was concerned. As observed herein above, he must not only be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract up to the date of the filing of the suit but also during the continuance thereof so that the Court would be in a position to consider the case of granting relief by way of damages in lieu of specific performance even at the time of the passing of the decree.
( 4 ) IT is to be remembered that the question of granting relief by way of damages in lieu of or in substitution of specific performance is a matter resting entirely with the Court and parties have nothing to do with it. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to abandon the case for specific performance and yet claim damages in lieu thereof as they have purported to do here. If the plaintiff has to choose his course of action then that must be done at the initial stage. He must decide once for all whether he was to pursue his remedy by claiming specific performance in which case he must satisfy the Court till the hearing is concluded and the Judgment is delivered that he wanted specific performance. In such circumstances only it is a matter for the Court to consider in a proper case whether or not damages in lieu of specific pe
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.