1997 Supreme(All) 1034
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. N. RAY
JAMILA KHATOON - Appellant
Versus
RAM NIWAS GUPTA - Respondents
FIRST APPEAL 486 Of 1980
Decided On : 09/09/1997
H.S.NIGAM, VIRENDRA KUMAR
In a suit for specific performance of contract, the plaintiff must prove both willingness and readiness to perform his part of the contract. If the plaintiff fails to prove willingness and readiness, the court may grant alternative relief of compensation under Section 21 (2) of the Specific Relief Act.
Headnote:
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT - AGREEMENT TO SELL - SECTION 21 (2) OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - READINESS AND WILLINGNESS OF PLAINTIFF TO PERFORM HIS PART OF CONTRACT - ALTERNATIVE RELIEF OF COMPENSATION - INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING SUIT - MODIFICATION OF DECREE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell the disputed land. The agreement was duly registered and part of the sale consideration was paid. The defendant agreed to obtain permission to sell from the competent authority within six months and give written notice to the plaintiff fixing five months time to get the deed executed. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendant refused to execute the sale deed on accepting the balance consideration, so the plaintiff filed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was ready and willing to purchase the disputed property on payment of balance money, but there was inordinate delay in presentation of the suit without giving proper explanation. The court held that the learned court below was not justified in decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract and should have granted alternative relief as prayed for by the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proved both willingness and readiness to perform his part of the contract. 2. Whether the court should have granted alternative relief of compensation under Section 21 (2) of the Specific Relief Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that readiness and willingness of plaintiff to perform his part of contract must be proved for getting a decree for specific performance of contract, otherwise, he may be granted an alternative relief, if prayed for. 2. The court held that since the plaintiff made a prayer for refund of earnest money and damages, the court should have granted alternative relief as prayed for by the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed by modification of the decree. The decree was set aside and modified by allowing a decree for refund of earnest money along with simple interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum from the date of presentation of suit together with damages of Rs. 5000. 00 by the defendant to the plaintiff.
( 1 ) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT filed suit which was numbered as suit No. 123/78 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sharanpur. The suit was for specific performance of an agreement to sell the disputed land and that was decreed on 6-8-1980.
( 2 ) IN brief, the case of the plaintiff respondent was that the defendant appellant agreed to sell the property in dispute for a consideration of Rs. 31,350. 00 under the agreement dated 10-1-1975. The agreement was duly registered and the amount of Rs. 5000. 00 was alleged to have been paid as part of the sale consideration. It was agreed between them that the defendant would obtain permission to sell at her own expenses from the competent authority within six months and after obtaining the same she would give written notice to the plaintiff fixing five months time to get the deed executed. The plaintiff has always been in possession of funds to pay the balance of sale consideration and bear the expenses of getting the same deed executed and registered and plaintiffhad that capacity even on the date of filing of the suit and he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract under the agreement to purchase the disputed land and was also willing on the date of filing of the suit. The defendant refused to execute the sale deed on accepting the balance consideration and so he filed the suit which was decreed. Oral and documentary evidences had been adduced by the parties in this appeal. The judgment and decree was challenged mainly on two grounds.
( 3 ) IT was argued that to get a decree for specific performance of the contract, plaintiff must prove both willingness and readiness but the instant suit was filed wherein plaintiff failed to prove willingness and that there was a case of readiness only so plaintiff was not entitled to get a decree for specific performance of contract. It was further contended that since the plaintiff claimed damages and the suit was filed within the period of limitation so the court should have granted alternative relief of compensation under Section 21 (2) of the Specific Relief Act. It has been contended that in no way it has been averred that the plaintiff was willing and there was no evidence that plaintiff was willing to fulfil his part of contract. There was an agreement that he was ready to pay the money to get the sale deed executed. In the notice given by the defendant, plaintiff did not mention that he was willing to purchase and was ready to pay the balance amount and to get the sale deed executed in his favour. It has been further contended that since the plaintiff made a prayer for damages and also the prayer for refund of the earnes money, the learned court was not justified in allowing the suit for specific performance of contract. Where there is no prayer for refund of the earnest money or compensation in that event the court may direct the plaintiff to amend the plaint for incorporating alternative prayer, but in the instant case there was such a prayer for refund of earnest money together with damages, so the learned court below erred in law in not allowing alternative prayer. Moreover, the plaintiff made inordinate delay in filing the suit. As the price of the land was soring high granting of alternative relief was more suitable. However, the suit was not barred by limitation but definitely it was filed after long delay, so, the court was not justified in decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract. In this regard, learned counsel for appellant referred the following decisions before me as reported in AIR 1 996 SC 2150 : (1996 AIR SCW 2606), 1996 SCC 423 (sic) wherein it has been held that readiness and willingness of plaintiff to perform his part of contract must be proved for getting a decree for specific performance of contract, otherwise, he may be granted an alternative relief, if prayed for. Learned Advocate for the appellant has referred another decision reported in 1997 (3) SCC 1 : (AIR 1997 SC 1751), K. S.