2018 Supreme(Del) 1656

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Bhaskar Saini - Appellant
Versus
Satbir Singh - Respondent
RFA No.535 of 2005
Decided On : 03-07-2018

Readiness as required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act pertains to financial capacity as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and such financial capacity cannot be believed of a proposed buyer/plaintiff simply on oral statements.

Headnote:

[KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]

Fact of the Case:

The parties entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 24.8.2000 with respect to the suit property. At the time of entering into of the agreement to sell an amount of Rs.60,000/- was paid by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant out of the total sale consideration of Rs.6 lacs. The period of performance fixed was of two months i.e up to 23.10.2000. Pleading that the appellant/defendant was guilty of breach of contract in not specifically performing the Agreement to Sell, a legal notice dated 17.10.2000 was sent by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant for being present before the Sub Registrar when the respondent/plaintiff would be present before the Sub Registrar with the balance sale consideration and the necessary stamp papers. Respondent/plaintiff pleaded that in spite of appellant/defendant being served with the legal notice and the respondent/plaintiff appearing before the Sub Registrar, the appellant/defendant failed to appear before the sub Registrar for signing the transfer documents of the suit property in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and hence committed breach of Agreement to Sell dated 24.8.2000. Again on 24.10.2000, the respondent/plaintiff sent a legal notice and in reply to which the appellant/defendant pleaded that he had purchased the suit property from Sh. Hawa Singh but there seems to be some documents in favour of one Sh. Net Ram. Pleading that the appellant/defendant was guilty in failing to perform the agreement to sell, the subject suit for specific performance was filed.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court held that no such receipt Ex.DW1/C as pleaded by the appellant/defendant was executed by the respondent/plaintiff for cancelling the subject Agreement to Sell and the respondent/plaintiff receiving back the amount of Rs.60,000/-. Trial court held that depositions of the three witnesses Sh. Ramesh Kumar (DW2), Sh. Ajendra Pal Kataria (DW3) and Sh. Gyan Chand Saini (DW4) cannot be believed on account of discrepancies in their statements with respect to whether receipt was already typed one day before or was prepared then and there or as to whether there were only the witnesses and the executants of the receipt who were present or that even the brother of the appellant/defendant was present. Trial court accordingly held that the Agreement to Sell was not cancelled and the amount of Rs.60,000/- was not returned to the respondent/plaintiff. The trial court has wrongly decided issue no.1 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, and it is therefore held by this Court that respondent/plaintiff has failed to prove readiness for being successful for grant of the relief of specific performance. Respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance by simply having paid 10% of the sale consideration, and as so held by the Supreme Court in Saradamani Kandappan case (supra).

Issues: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement dated 24.08.2000?

Ratio Decidendi: Mere payment of 10% of the consideration will not entitle grant of the discretionary relief of specific performance. Readiness as required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act pertains to financial capacity as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments and such financial capacity cannot be believed of a proposed buyer/plaintiff simply on oral statements. For this purpose, this Court placed reliance upon the observations made in the earlier judgment in the case of Baldev Behl & Ors. Vs. Bhule & Ors. (2012) 132 DRJ 247. It was held in the case of Baldev Behl & Ors. (supra) that self-serving averments cannot prove financial capacity and financial capacity has to be proved categorically by evidence, including credible documentary evidence, which the court would believe on preponderance of probabilities.

Final Decision: Appeal is accordingly allowed, and disposed of, to the extent as stated above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.