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.

R. Shama Naik vs G. Srinivasiah - 2024 Supreme(SC) 1130

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 1130

J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
R. Shama Naik – Appellant
Versus
G. Srinivasiah – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Manjunath Meled, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Udapudi, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Kumar R., AOR

Judgement Key Points

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, refe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document