SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
U.N. Krishnamurthy (Since deceased) Thr. Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
A.M. Krishnamurthy – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4703 of 2022 [Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 19463 of 2018]
Decided On : 12-07-2022
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) – Agreement to Sell – In a suit for specific performance of agreement, it is for Plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the agreement – Where a certain amount has been paid in advance and balance is required to be paid within a stipulated time, it is for Plaintiff to show that he was in a position to pay balance money – Plaintiff has to prove that he has money or has alternatively made necessary arrangements to get money – Plaintiff would have to plead that plaintiff had sufficient funds or was in a position to raise funds in time to discharge his obligation under the contract – If plaintiff does not have sufficient funds with him to discharge his obligations in terms of a contract which requires payment of money, plaintiff would have to specifically plead how funds would be available to him – There is distinction between readiness and willingness to perform contract and both ingredients are necessary for relief of Specific Performance. (Paras 21, 25 and 34)
(B) Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – No evidence has been adduced on behalf of Respondent-Plaintiff as to how Respondent-Plaintiff was in a position to pay or make arrangements for payment of balance sale consideration within time – For relief of specific performance, Plaintiff has to prove that all along and till final decision of suit, he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract – It is bounden duty of Plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness by adducing evidence – This crucial facet has to be determined by considering all circumstances including availability of funds and mere statement or averment in plaint of readiness and willingness, would not suffice – In this case, Respondent-Plaintiff has failed to discharge his duty to prove his readiness as well as willingness to perform his part of contract, by adducing cogent evidence – Acceptable evidence has not been placed on record to prove his readiness and willingness – Making subsequent deposit of balance consideration after lapse of seven years would not establish Respondent-Plaintiff’s readiness to discharge his part of contract – Respondent-Plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness to perform his part of contract from date of execution of agreement till date of decree, which is a condition precedent for grant of relief of specific performance – Respondent Plaintiff was not entitled to relief of specific performance – Impugned judgment of High Court and judgment and decree of Trial Court set aside – Appellants shall return earnest money to Respondent Plaintiff, with 7% interest. [Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c)] (Paras 45, 46, 47, 48 and 52)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal is against a final judgment and decree dated 30th October 2017 passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras, dismissing the Appeal Suit No. 262 of 2011 filed by Appellants and confirming a judgment and order and decree dated 30th November 2010 passed by Trial Court in Original Suit No. 30 of 2005 filed by Respondent Plaintiff, for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the suit property.
Primary question for determination is whether Respondent Plaintiff has proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract or not?
Findings of Court:
Respondent Plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance. The Trial Court and the High Court erred both in law and on facts in granting such relief.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Understood. Please provide the legal document content (to insert in place of {content}) and any specific query or task (e.g., extract key points, summarize clauses), and I'll analyze it accordingly using the specified formatting for references (e.g., (!) (!) ).
JUDGMENT :
Indira Banerjee, J.
Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. Krishnan Venugopal learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR on behalf of Appellants and Mr. N.D.B Raju, learned Advocate appearing with Mr. M.A. Chinnasamy, AOR on behalf of Respondent.
3. This Appeal is against a final judgment and decree dated 30th October 2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dismissing the Appeal Suit No. 262 of 2011 filed by the Appellants and confirming a judgment and order and decree dated 30th November 2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court” in Original Suit No. 30 of 2005 filed by the Respondent Plaintiff, for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the suit property.
4. In the plaint, it is pleaded that the original Defendant U.N. Krishnamurthy’s father, U.R. Narasaiah had executed a will on or about 9th May 1984, bequeathing the suit property to the original Defendant, U.N. Krishnamurthy (since deceased). After the death of his father, U.R. Narasaiah, on 25th April 1987, the original Defendant U.N. Krishnamurthy became the absolute owner of the suit property.
5. It is the case of the Appellants that on 11th November 2002, while the original Defendant was getting the suit property whitewashed, a real estate agent Mr. N. Anjappa approached the original Defendant with an offer to arrange the sale of the suit property at a good price.
6. As per the pleadings in the plaint, the original Defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the Respondent Plaintiff, in the presence of Mr. N. Anjappa, Mr. S.A. Muralidharan and Mr. M. Murali Reddy. The terms and conditions of the agreement for sale of the suit property were recorded by the original Defendant U.N. Krishnamurthy in his own handwriting in a letter dated 11th November 2002 given by the original Defendant to the Respondent Plaintiff.
7. It is the case of the Respondent Plaintiff that the original Defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the Respondent Plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.15,10,000/-, out of which sum of Rs.10,001/- was paid by the Respondent Plaintiff to the original Defendant in advance. It was further agreed between the parties, that the Respondent Plaintiff would get the sale deed registered on or before 15th March 2003, upon payment of the full sale consideration. The agreement was allegedly witnessed by the real estate agent, Mr. N. Anjappa.
8. According to the Respondent Plaintiff, the Respondent Plaintiff approached the original Defendant with the balance consideration several times and requested the original Defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour, but the original Defendant kept postponing execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other.
9. On or about 13th February 2003, the Respondent Plaintiff issued a legal notice to the original Defendant through his lawyer stating that the Respondent Plaintiff is ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and called upon the original Defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of Respondent Plaintiff after receiving the balance consideration. By a letter dated 10th March 2003 sent in response to the aforesaid legal notice, the original Defendant denied having entered into any oral sale agreement for sale of the suit property.
10. On 8th October 2005, the Respondent Plaintiff allegedly approached the original Defendant with a request to receive the balance consideration and to execute the sale deed in favour of the Respondent Plaintiff. It is alleged that the original Defendant went back upon his promise and refused to accede to the request made by the Respondent Plaintiff.
11. In the circumstances, on or about 17th October 2005, the Respondent Plaintiff filed the suit. The original Defendant filed a written statement denying the allegations in the plaint. In the written statement, the original Defendant denied the execution of any agreement for sale of the suit property for consideration of Rs.15,1
Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha
Pt. Prem Raj v. D.L.F. Housing and Construction (Private) Ltd. And Anr.
Ardeshir Mama v. Flora Sassoon, 55 IA 300
N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao and Ors.
Umabai v. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan
Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji v. Sita Ram Thapar
Malluru Mallappa v. Kuruvathappa
Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi
P.R. Deb and Associates v. Sunanda Roy
Agreement to Sell – In a suit for specific performance of agreement, it is for Plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the agreement – Where a certain amount....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract, as mandated by Sect....
Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – There is distinction between limitation and delay and laches.
Time is of the essence of a contract if the parties have agreed that it is or if the circumstances of the case show that it is.
The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, and the defendants failed to prove that the plaintiff lacked the financial capacity to pay the balance sale considerati....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.