Back
High Court Of Delhi
RAJ RANI - Appellant
Versus
KARTAR SINGH - Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL 207-D of 1964
Decided On : 01/16/1973
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - READINESS AND WILLINGNESS TO PURCHASE - CONDUCT OF THE PURCHASER - INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT - SECTION 16 (C) OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT 1963 - DISTINCTION BETWEEN READINESS AND WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM - CONDUCT CONTRARY TO THE CONTRACT - DELAY IN PERFORMANCE - ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS - UNWILLINGNESS TO PERFORM.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants-appellants for the sale of a property. The agreement to sell was executed on 20-3-1962, and the sale deed was to be executed and registered by 8th August 1962. The plaintiff-respondent alleged that he was ready and willing to purchase the property, but the defendants-appellants failed to comply with the terms of the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff-respondent was not ready and willing to purchase the property from the date of the agreement till the date of the filing of the suit. The court held that the plaintiff-respondent's conduct showed that he was only interested in prolonging his tenancy and had no intention of purchasing the property.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff-respondent was ready and willing to purchase the property from the date of the agreement till the date of the filing of the suit. 2. Whether the defendants-appellants failed to comply with the terms of the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff-respondent's conduct showed that he was not ready and willing to purchase the property. The plaintiff-respondent insisted on additional conditions that were not part of the agreement, and he failed to tender a stamped sale deed or pay the purchase price. 2. The court held that the defendants-appellants had complied with the terms of the agreement. The defendants-appellants had obtained all the necessary documents and had informed the plaintiff-respondent about them. The defendants-appellants had also offered to show the documents to the plaintiff-respondent, but he refused to inspect them.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff-respondent's suit for specific performance.
( 1 ) THE decision of this appeal turns on the question whether the plaintiff- respondent was ready and willing to purchase the property from defendant-appellants from the date of the contract between the parties till the date of the filing of the suit for specific performance by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendants.
( 2 ) THE suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendants appellants has been decreed by the trial Court. Hence this appeal by the defendants appellants. The facts and circumstances on which the decision in the appeal would be arrived at may be shortly stated.
( 3 ) THE ground floor portion of the building in suit was leased by the defendants-appellants to the plaintiff-respondent in 1958. On 21-9-1961, the defendants-appellants agreed to sell the building in suit to the plaintiff-respondent. The conveyance of the property, however, did not take place and a fresh agreement to sell was executed by the defendants-appellants in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on 20-3-1962. The material clauses of the agreement to sell were as follows :- (2) The sellers were to pay off the mortgage on the suit property in favour of one Kaushalya Rani and deliver to the purchaser the mortgage deed duly discharged at the time of the registration of the sale deed. (3) The sellers were to get the permission from the Ministry of Rehabilitation for the transfer of the lease deed of the land over which the said property was constructed before the execution and registration of the sale deed. (4) The sellers were to produce satisfactory evidence as to the majority of Chandra Prakash and in case he was found to be a minor, Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin was to obtain the requisite permission from the Court of the District Judge, Delhi, for the transfer of the share of the said Chandra Prakash in the suit property. (5) Subject to clause 9 the execution and registration of the sale deed was to be completed by the 8th of August 1962. (9) In case the sellers failed to get the sanction from the Ministry of Rehabilitation or to get the permission from the District Judge or to obtain the wealth-tax certificate within the period stipulated for the transfer of the property, the sale deed was to be executed and registered within one month from the grant of the sanction from the Ministry of Rehabilitation or from the grant of the permission by the District Judge or from the grant of the wealth-tax certificate whichever would be the latest. The intimation regarding the receipt of sanctions and the certificate was to be given by the sellers to the purchaser by a registered acknowledgment due letter and the aforesaid period of one month was to be computed from the delivery of such letter to the purchaser or refusal by him to receive the said letter. (16) The purchaser was to pay for the stamp duty, corporation tax, registration charges, etc. , necessary for the execution and registration of the sale deed.
( 4 ) THE certificates regarding income-tax and wealth-tax were received by the sellers during the period from 11. 7. 1962 to 25. 7. 1962. The school certificate of Chandra Prakash showing his date of birth dated 10-5-62 was in the possession of the sellers on or before 13th August 1962 inasmuch as a reference to it has been made by the sellers counsel in a letter of 13th August 1962 addressed to the purchaser s counsel. Lastly, the certificate from the Ministry of Rehabilitation dated 20th August 1956 was already with the sellers.
( 5 ) LET us now examine the conduct of the parties near about the 8+h of August 1962 which was fixed as the date on which the sale deed was to be executed. On 1. 8. 1962 the purchaser s counsel wrote to the sellers requesting for the supply of the following documents, namely :- original will left by the late Chanan Singh Bhasin, (2) permission from the District Judge, (3) permission from the Rehabilitation Ministry, (4) documents showing the discharge of mortgage of Kaus
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
