Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to reconvey property. The plaintiff, originally the owner of the suit properties, sold them to the first defendant under a registered sale deed for Rs. 24,500. The plaintiff claimed that apart from the written sale deed, there was an oral agreement with the first defendant to reconvey the properties at the same price whenever the plaintiff called upon him to do so. The first defendant died before filing his written statement. Before his death, he had gifted the suit properties to his wife, the second defendant. The second defendant, in her written statement, denied the oral agreement pleaded by the plaintiff but stated that just before his death, her husband had agreed to sell item No. 1 of the suit property less one acre of paddy field to the plaintiff for Rs. 11,500, and she was willing to execute such a sale. The plaintiff did not amend his plaint or express willingness to accept that arrangement, and the suit proceeded on the basis of the agreement pleaded in the plaint. The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance of the oral agreement. On appeal, the High Court did not accept the plaintiff’s version of the oral agreement but granted a decree directing the defendant to execute a sale deed for item No. 1 less one acre for Rs. 11,500, relying on the admission in the written statement. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. The main legal issues were whether the oral agreement for reconveyance was proved and whether the High Court could grant a decree based solely on the defendant’s statement without the plaintiff’s acceptance. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving the oral agreement was heavy on the plaintiff, and a decree for specific performance is rarely granted on oral evidence alone. The sale deed evidenced an outright sale, and there was no satisfactory explanation for not incorporating the reconveyance agreement. The plaintiff’s oral evidence was found unreliable and insufficient. The Court further ruled that a suit for specific performance must conform to Forms 47 and 48 of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the plaintiff must plead and prove his readiness and willingness to perform the specific contract. The High Court had erred in decreeing specific performance on a contract different from the one pleaded, without the plaintiff’s acceptance. Since neither party had come with the true version, the Court directed each party to bear its own costs. The plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed, the defendant’s appeal allowed, and the suit was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief - Specific Performance of Oral Agreement - Burden of Proof and Standard of Evidence - Specific Relief Act, 1877, s. 12 - In a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to reconvey property sold under a written sale deed, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish the agreement by convincing evidence. The court will rarely grant a decree for specific performance based solely on oral evidence, especially where the sale deed evidences an outright sale and no satisfactory explanation is given for the absence of a written agreement. Held that the plaintiff failed to prove the oral agreement pleaded in the plaint. B) Civil Procedure - Pleadings in Suit for Specific Performance - Acceptance of Defendant’s Offer in Written Statement - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Forms 47 and 48 - Where a defendant in a suit for specific performance makes an admission or offer in the written statement regarding a different agreement, but the plaintiff neither amends the plaint to accept that agreement nor pleads readiness and willingness to perform it, the court cannot decree specific performance on that basis. A suit for specific performance must conform to the requirements of Forms 47 and 48 of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the plaintiff must plead and satisfy the court of his willingness to perform the contract. Held that the High Court erred in granting a decree on the basis of the defendant’s written statement admission without the plaintiff’s acceptance. C) Costs - Withholding of Facts - Both Parties to Bear Own Costs - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - When neither party has come forward with the true version of the facts and the defendant has resiled from her written statement offer, it is appropriate to direct both parties to bear their own costs throughout the proceedings. Held that the parties should bear their own costs.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff has proved the oral agreement for reconveyance as required by law; Whether a court can grant a decree for specific performance on the basis of a defendant’s admission in the written statement when the plaintiff has not accepted that admission or amended the plaint.
Final Decision
Civil Appeal No. 1782 of 1966 dismissed; Civil Appeal No. 1783 of 1966 allowed; suit dismissed; parties to bear their own costs throughout.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- burden of proof in specific performance
- oral agreement
- convincing evidence
- plaintiff must plead readiness and willingness
- offer in written statement not accepted cannot be basis for decree
- costs when both parties withhold facts
