Case Note & Summary
The litigation originated from a registered sale deed dated March 10, 1975, under which the first petitioner purchased land from the respondent, accompanied by a contemporaneous agreement of reconveyance within two years. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance alleging that despite repeated requests and readiness to pay the sale consideration, the petitioner failed to execute the reconveyance deed. The respondent pleaded that on March 9, 1997, as per the judgment text, they attended the Sub-Registrar's office at Muzaffarnagar to get the sale deed executed and registered, and their attendance was recorded, but the petitioner did not turn up; the next day, the petitioner intentionally avoided execution. The petitioner contended that the reconveyance agreement was cancelled by a subsequent agreement dated June 4, 1975 (Ex A-1) and that the respondent lacked sufficient funds and filed the suit to blackmail. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the respondent failed to prove readiness and willingness and sufficient means. On appeal, the Additional District Judge decreed the suit on May 22, 1995, and the Allahabad High Court dismissed the second appeal on April 1, 1996. The petitioner then filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the plaint did not conform to Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix AA of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Allahabad High Court and that the respondent did not plead ready money as required by Section 16(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Supreme Court examined the pleadings and found that paragraphs 5, 9, and 10 of the plaint substantially complied with the prescribed forms, as the procedure is the handmaid of substantive rights. On readiness and willingness, the Court held that the respondent's presence at the Sub-Registrar's office to execute the sale deed, while the petitioner failed to attend, positively proved that the respondent was ready and willing to perform their part and had the capacity to pay the sale consideration. It was not necessary for the respondent to have ready cash at all times or carry money from the date of suit till decree. The Court concluded that the lower courts had appropriately exercised their discretion in granting specific performance on sound principles of law. Accordingly, the special leave petition was dismissed, and the decree for specific performance was upheld.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(1)(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 - In a suit for specific performance of an agreement of reconveyance, the plaintiff's presence at the Sub-Registrar's office to execute and register the sale deed, while the defendant failed to attend, constituted positive proof of readiness and willingness and capacity to pay; it is not necessary to carry ready cash from the date of suit till decree; capacity to pay is sufficient. Held that appellate court and High Court rightly decreed specific performance on sound principles of law. B) Civil Procedure - Pleadings - Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix AA, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The plaint averments in paragraphs 5, 9 and 10 substantially complied with Forms 47 and 48 as amended by Allahabad High Court; procedural requirements are handmaid to substantive rights, and substantial compliance is sufficient. Held that the suit was not liable to be dismissed for formal non-compliance.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit plaint complied with Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix AA of CPC as amended by Allahabad High Court and Section 16(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; whether respondents proved readiness and willingness to perform their part of the reconveyance agreement; whether courts below correctly exercised discretion to decree specific performance.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the decree for specific performance granted by the appellate court and confirmed by the High Court. The Court held that the respondents had pleaded and proved readiness and willingness and that courts below rightly exercised discretion.
Law Points
- Readiness and willingness under Section 16(1)(c) Specific Relief Act can be shown by attending Sub-Registrar's office with funds
- not necessary to have ready cash
- substantial compliance with Forms 47 and 48 CPC is sufficient
- procedure is handmaid of substantive rights.
