Back
1975 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6
DELHI HIGH COURT
, J
Raj Rani Bhasin and Others v. S. Kartar Singh Mehta
Civil Appeal No. xyz-1234
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [Counsel Name]
For the Respondents: [Counsel Name]
A plaintiff must prove both readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance; mere financial capability is insufficient.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - The suit for specific performance was dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to prove willingness and readiness to perform the contract. The court asserts that the plaintiff did not comply with the contract requirements nor present a sale deed in a timely manner (Paras 10-12, 15-16).
(B) Conduct of parties - Determining willingness requires examining the conduct and actions of the plaintiff, which exhibited procrastination and lack of readiness to proceed with the sale (Paras 8-10, 11-14).
(C) Contractual obligations - An execution of the sale deed involves explicit obligations that were adequately communicated to the plaintiff, but were not met (Paras 9-16).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court examines readiness and willingness for contract performance. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of contractual obligations and timelines. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. financial capacity doesn't equate to willingness to perform. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. specific performance requires plaintiff's unequivocal willingness. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. dismissal of suit due to lack of necessary compliance by plaintiff. (Para 16) |
1. The decision of this appeal turns on the determination of the question whether the plaintiff - respondent was ready and willing to purchase the property from the defendants - appellants from the date of the contract between the parties till the date of the filing suit for specific performance by the plaintiff - respondent against the defendants - appellants.
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 21-09-1961, 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 20-03-1962. 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 on one Kaushalya Rani and deliver to the purchaser the mortgage deed duly discharged at the time of the registration of 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 ever 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 11-07-1962 to 25-07-1962. The school certificate of Chandra Prakash showing his date of birth dated 10-05-1962 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 par
