Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
R. Shama Naik – Appellant
Versus
G. Srinivasiah – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13933 of 2021
Decided on : 28-11-2024
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) – Agreement to sell – Suit for specific performance – Plaintiff is obliged not only to make specific statement and averments in plaint but is also obliged to adduce necessary oral and documentary evidence to show availability of funds to make payment in terms of contract in time – There is a fine distinction between readiness and willingness to perform contract – Both ingredients are necessary for relief of specific performance – While readiness means capacity of plaintiff to perform contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to conduct of plaintiff – Plaintiff has failed to establish that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract – This being a finding of fact cannot be termed as perverse – Petition dismissed. (Paras 10 to 15)
Facts of the case:
Instant petition arises from judgment and order passed by High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Regular First Appeal by which Regular First Appeal filed by original defendant came to be allowed thereby quashing and setting aside judgment and decree of specific performance passed by trial court in favour of petitioner herein-original plaintiff.
Findings of Court:
High Court in first appeal upon appreciation of evidence on record both oral and documentary has arrived at conclusion that plaintiff has failed to establish that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract.
Result : Petition dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell property, where the primary issue was whether the plaintiff demonstrated both readiness and willingness to perform the contract (!) (!) .
The law requires that the plaintiff must not only state and aver readiness and willingness in the plaint but also substantiate these claims with necessary oral and documentary evidence, particularly evidence showing the availability of funds to make the payment in accordance with the contract (!) .
Readiness refers to the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract, including financial capability, while willingness pertains to the conduct and intention of the plaintiff to perform the contractual obligations (!) .
The courts have emphasized that both readiness and willingness are essential ingredients for granting relief of specific performance. Failure to establish either can lead to the dismissal of such a claim (!) .
In this case, the evidence on record, upon thorough appreciation, indicated that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, which resulted in the dismissal of the petition (!) (!) .
The decision was based on the factual findings of the court, and such findings of fact are not to be interfered with unless they are perverse, which was not the case here (!) .
Consequently, the petition for specific performance was dismissed, affirming the importance of establishing both readiness and willingness as prerequisites for such relief (!) .
These points highlight the legal requirement for a plaintiff seeking specific performance to demonstrate both capacity and conduct indicative of willingness to perform the contractual obligations, supported by appropriate evidence.
ORDER :
1. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Regular First Appeal No. 1017 of 2013 dated 01-07-2021 by which the Regular First Appeal filed by the original defendant came to be allowed thereby quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree of specific performance passed by the trial court in favour of the petitioner herein-original plaintiff.
2. It appears that the petitioner herein original plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based on agreement of sale dated 3rd March 2005.
3. The total sale consideration fixed in the Agreement of sale is Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty lakh only). Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakh fifty thousand only) came to be paid by the petitioner herein towards earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement of sale.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but it is the respondent herein original-defendant who was not inclined to execute the sale deed despite accepting the amount of Rs.12,50,000/-(Rupees Twelve lakh fifty thousand only) towards earnest money.
5. In such circumstances, referred to above, the petitioner herein instituted Original Suit No.1101 of 2008 praying for a relief of specific performance or in the alternative for refund of the earnest money.
6. The trial court allowed the suit and passed a decree for specific performance. The defendant went in appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal of the defendant on the issue of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in performing his part of the contract.
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the materials on record.
8. Section 16(C) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (prior to amendment w.e.f. 1.10.2018) bars the relief of the specific performance of a contract in favour of a person who fails to aver readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
9. There is a legion of precedents on the subject of readiness and willingness.
10. The law is well settled. The plaintiff is obliged not only to make specific statement and averments in the plaint but is also obliged to adduce necessary oral and documentary evidence to show the availability of funds to make payment in terms of the contract in time.
11. There is a fine distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract. Both the ingredients are necessary for the relief of specific performance.
12. While readiness means the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the plaintiff.
13. The High Court in first appeal upon appreciation of the evidence on record both oral and documentary has arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
14. This being a finding of fact and cannot be termed as perverse, there is no good reason for us to interfere with the impugned judgment.
15. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Agreement to sell – Suit for specific performance – There is fine distinction between readiness and willingness to perform contract.
A plaintiff must prove both readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance to be granted; failure to establish either element results in dismissal of the claim.
Continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract must be established for entitlement to specific performance.
Plaintiffs must prove readiness and willingness for specific performance; financial capacity may be demonstrated through means to secure funds, not necessarily possession of cash.
A plaintiff must establish both readiness and willingness to perform a contract to seek specific performance; failure to do so renders the claim unsustainable.
Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Equity must operate in a manner that prevents unjust enrichment and restores parties to their original position, as far as possible particularly wh....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
