Contract validity cannot be dismissed solely due to intoxication unless mental impairment is proven; sufficient evidence of the plaintiff's readiness is vital for specific performance.

JUDGMENT

A decree for specific performance of contract based on Ext.A1 agreement dated 10/08/2017 was granted by the trial court against which the defendant came up. The total sale consideration comes to Rs.12,92,500/- i.e. @ Rs.50,000/- per cent for 10.46 Ares equivalent to 25.85 cents. The period of contract was upto 30/1/2018.

2. The defendant challenged the validity of Ext.A1 agreement on the ground that it was obtained under duress and he was under intoxication at the time when it was executed. But it is an admitted case that subsequent to Ext.A1 agreement dated 10/08/2017, he had issued Ext.A2 notice to the plaintiff on 30/8/2017 repudiating the contract as he was under the influence of intoxication due to consumption of alcohol. An agreement which was executed without knowing its content or under duress would stand vitiated. A mere intoxication or influence of intoxication would not make the document invalid unless the influence of intoxication is of the nature sufficient to impair the entire mental ability to understand the nature and content of the document. The fact that just after few days he had issued Ext.A2 notice of revocation would sufficiently show that the factum of execution of Ext.A1 agreement was within his notice right from the moment of its execution and this would sufficiently show that there was no complete impairment of mental capacity at the time of its execution, even if it is admitted that he was under the influence of alcohol at the relevant time. So the challenge raised on the said ground cannot be sustained.

3. It is a case wherein the plaintiff did not mount on the box in order to satisfy the readiness and willingness as mandated under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act which would engulf the elements of mental condition. No other satisfactory evidence was also adduced to show the readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. But at the same time, it is not at all necessary in all cases that the plaintiff should mount on the box in order to satisfy the said requirements though involves mental elements. But there should be sufficient evidence to reveal the mental condition and readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. In the absence of such evidence sufficient to reveal and establish readiness and willingness, the plaintiff should mount on the box to testify by cross-examination and non-examination of plaintiff in that situation would stand fatal to the case. In the instant case, no satisfactory evidence was adduced to show the readiness and willingness as mandated under of the Act and the plaintiff did not mount on the box to give any direct evidence. Necessarily, no decree for specific performance can be granted.

4. Yet another reason is also available to non-suit the plaintiff, since there is no prayer for alternative relief for return of the advance amount. But, it is a case wherein the defendant had admitted the receipt of Rs.50,000/- and expressed his willingness to return the same with interest. It is not permissible to reject the relief of return of advance amount when it is admitted by the defendant and expressed willingness to return the same with interest in his written statement. Hence, the admission would cure the defect of non-incorporation of alternative relief in the suit and bar under Section 22 of Specific Relief Act . Hence, it is permissible to grant a decree for return of the advance amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. I do so. The deposit of amount, if any, can be adjusted towards the amount due.

The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs. The appellant has to pay the court fee within two months, failing which it shall be recovered under Order XXXIII Rule 14 C.P.C. by forwarding a copy of the decree to the District Collector concerned.