Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Md. Anwar Hussain, son of Late Habib Mia – Appellant
Versus
Md. Khursheed Alam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of contract of sale of immoveable property.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging judgment dated 05.04.2022 (decree signed on 16.04.2022) passed by the learned District Judge-I, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2020. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been allowed and the judgment dated 23.02.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 73 of 2010 has been set aside. The defendant is the appellant.
3. Inspite of service of notice, nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.
4. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 27.01.2025 on the following substantial question of law: -
“Whether the learned first appellate court has committed a substantial error of law while reversing the decree of the learned trial court and failed to consider that readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiffs was not proved as the plaintiffs failed in disclosing the source through which they would pay the balance consideration amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-?”
Arguments of the appellant/defendant.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant while referring to t
Plaintiffs must provide clear evidence of readiness and willingness backed by fund availability to claim specific performance of a contract, as mere statements are insufficient.
Plaintiff's failure to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform contract negates entitlement to specific performance under Specific Relief Act.
Plaintiffs must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, supported by evidence of financial capacity.
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was not established in this case.
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations; failure to do so bars relief.
Specific performance requires proof of continuous readiness and willingness by the plaintiff, and failure to demonstrate this justifies denial of relief.
In a suit for specific performance, plaintiffs must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, supported by cogent evidence; mere assertions are insufficient.
Continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent for obtaining relief of grant of specific performance, as mandated by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief A....
The appellate court emphasized that specific performance requires proof of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which was not adequately addressed by the trial Court.
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
