IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The language in Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act does not require any specific phraseology but only that the plaintiff must aver that he has performed or has always been and is willing to perform his part of the contract. So the compliance of "Readiness and willingness" has to be in spirit and substance and not in letter and form. So to insist for mechanical production of the exact words of an statute is to insist for the form rather than essence.
2. In interpreting a pleading wherever there be two possible interpretations, then the one which defeats justice should be rejected and the one which sub-serve to justice should be accepted.

Headnote:(i) Specific Relief Act, 1963-Section 16(c)-Plea of readiness and willingness to perform -Construction of-Language in Section 16(c) does not require any specific phraseology but only that plaintiff must aver that he has performed or has always been willing to perform his part of contract-Compliance of readiness and willingness has to be in spirit and not in letter and form-Mechanical reproduction of exact words of section cannot be insisted upon-Averment in plaint that major portion of amount already paid and balance sale consideration deposited on date of filing suit-Such a plea amounts to readiness and willingness as required u/s 16(c).
       Held : In construing a plea in any pleading, Courts must keep in mind that a plea is not an expression of art and science but an expression through words to place fact and law of one s case for a relief. Such an expression may be pointed, precise, some times vague but still could be gathered what he wants to convey through only by reading the whole pleading, depends on the person drafting a plea. In India most of the pleas are drafted by counsels hence aforesaid difference of pleas which inevitably differ from one to other. Thus, to gather true spirit behind a plea it should be read as a whole. This does not distract one from performing his obligations as required under a statute. But to test, whether he has performed his obligations one has to see the pith and substance of a plea. Where a statute requires any fact to be pleaded then that has to be pleaded may be in any form. Same plea may be stated by different persons through different words then how could it be constricted to be only in any particular nomenclature or word. Unless statute specifically require for a plea to be in any particular form, it can be in any form. No specific phraseology or language is required to take such a plea. (Para 9)
       The language in Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act does not require any specific phraseology but only that the plaintiff must aver that he has performed or has always been and is willing to perform his part of the contract. So the compliance of "Readiness and willingness" has to be in spirit and substance and not in letter and form. So to insist for mechanical production of the exact words of an statute is to insist for the form rather than essence. So absence of form cannot dissolve an essence if already pleaded. The Section makes it obligatory to a plaintiff seeking enforcement of specific performance, that he must not only come with clean hands but there should be a plea that he has performed or has been and is ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation. Unless this is there, Section 16(c) creates a bar to the grant of this discretionary relief. For this it is not necessary to plea by any specific words, if through any words it reveals the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of obligation then it cannot be said there is non-compliance of the said Section. (Paras 9 & 10)
       Explanation to Section 16(c) carves out contract which involves payment of money as a separate class from Section 16(c). Explanation (i) uses the words "it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court. This speaks in negative term what is not essential for plaintiff to do. This is more in support of plaintiff that he need not tender to the defendant or deposit in Court any money but the plaintiff must [as per explanation (ii)] at least aver his performance or readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. This does not mean that unless the court directs the plaintiff cannot tender the amount to the defendant or deposit in the Court. Plaintiff can always tender the amount to the defendant or deposit it in court, towards performance of his obligation under the contract. Such tender rather exhibits willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the obligation. What is not essential only means need not do but does not mean he cannot do so. (Para 11)
       In the instant case pleading recites that all balance amount of the consideration under the contract has been paid by the plaintiff of which there is an endorsement by the defendant except the balance amount of Rs. 120/- about which also there is a specific plea that he has tendered the same in the Court. It is true in the pleading the specific word "ready and willing to perform" in this nomenclature is not there. We have no hesitation to hold that the pleading as made by the plaintiff not only shows his readiness and willingness to perform his part of obligation under the contract but by tendering total amount shows he has performed his part of the obligation. We also construe such a plea to be a plea of "readiness and willingness" as required under Section 16(c). (Paras 10 & 13)
       (ii) Pleadings-Interpretation of -In interpreting a pleading wherever there be two possible interpretations, then the one which defeats justice should be rejected and the one which sub-serves justice should be accepted. (Paras 9 & 12)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The language in Section 16(c) does not require specific phraseology, only that the plaintiff aver readiness and willingness to perform (!) (!) . - Readiness and willingness must be in spirit and substance, not in letter and form (!) (!) . - Pleadings must be interpreted to defeat injustice; the version that subserves justice should be accepted (!) (!) . - Explanation to Section 16(c) requires the plaintiff to aver performance or readiness and willingness, but does not mandate actual tender or deposit unless court directs (!) . - A plea showing performance of all but a small balance amount, with that balance tendered in court, can satisfy Section 16(c) (!) . - Courts cannot apply hyper-technical interpretation to defeat a claim for specific performance (!) . - The High Court erred by insisting on literal words "ready and willing" and misinterpreting the explanation (!) . - The appeal is allowed and the decree for specific performance is restored (!) . - The plaintiff must have clean hands and a plea of readiness and willingness to perform (!) (!) . - Tendering the balance amount in court, even without court order, cannot be held against the plaintiff (!) .

How to interpret a plea of "readiness and willingness to perform" under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

What are the obligations of a plaintiff seeking specific performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

How should pleadings be interpreted when there are two possible interpretations under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

JUDGMENT

A.P. Misra, J.-The short question raised in this appeal is, how to construe a plea of "readiness and willingness to perform" to sub-serve to the requirement of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act") and the interpretation of its explanation.

2. This appeal arises out of an Order dated 22nd October, 1986 passed by the High Court of Karnataka allowing the Second Appeal No. 954 of 1975 in favour of the respondent-defendant by dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for specific performance of an agreement to sell. This resulted into setting aside concurrent findings of both the courts below which decreed the appellant s suit. For this the sole ground was that appellant did not aver in his plaint that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Before adverting to this issue, it is necessary to give some bare facts.

3. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sale dated 11th August, 1960. According to the plea, defendant entered into an agreement to sell the properties for the consideration of Rs. 9500/-. As per stipulation in the agreement, the plaintiff agreed for an adjustment of the mortgage amount of Rs. 5000/- and paid Rs. 500/- to the defendant-respondent towards part consideration on the same date when the said agreement was executed. On this payment, only Rs. 4000/- remained as the balance amount to be paid and on this payment a sale deed was to be executed. As per plea, the defendant subsequently received a sum of Rs. 3680/- on and off from 13.1.1961 to 21.12.1965 from the plaintiff which is endorsed on the agreement to sale on the 21.12.1965. The plaintiff also paid to the defendant Rs. 100/- on 21.3.1965 and another Rs.100/- on 4.5.1966. Thus, in all out of the aforesaid balance amount of Rs. 4000/-, the plaintiff paid Rs. 3880/-. It is also averred that these payments are also duly recorded in the account book of the defendant. When plaintiff approached the defendant to receive the balance of Rs. 120/- towards sale price and to execute the sale deed the defendant evaded and hence left with no option a legal notice was served on the defendant.

4. The trial Court held that the alleged agreement to sell (Ex.P.1) was executed by the defendant for a sale consideration of Rs. 9500/- and the defendant agreed to execute sale deed on receipt of the balance amount of Rs. 4000/-, and that defendant did receive all the aforesaid amounts except Rs. 120/- which also plaintiff tendered in court. Hence, the suit for specific performance was decreed. The appellate court also confirmed the said findings. However, the High Court set aside the findings only on the ground that the plaintiff had not averred in his pleading specifically that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract which is mandatory under Section 16(c) of the aforesaid Act.

5. Mr. S.S. Javali, Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted, firstly, that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below. Secondly, even on facts there exists sufficient pleadings which conforms to the requirement of Section 16(c) of the Act. On the other hand learned counsel for the defendant stoutly defended the impugned order. He submits that the High Court was right to take up this pure question of law which goes at the root of the controversy and it rightly held there was no such plea thus dismissed the suit.

6. So far the first point, we felt as this goes to the root and being pure question of law, argued at length before the High Court, without objection being raised, it would not be proper, on the facts and circumstances of this case to accede to this submission for the appellant. Thus, the only question to which we are adverting is, the second point, viz., whether the plea of the plaintiff is sufficient to conform to the requirement of the aforesaid section. In other words, could it be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 831

How to interpret a plea of "readiness and willingness to perform" under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

What are the obligations of a plaintiff seeking specific performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

How should pleadings be interpreted when there are two possible interpretations under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

Cases Referred (3)