Case Note & Summary
The Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 10.11.2003 allegedly entered into with Defendant No.2 for development of property, and alternatively for return of consideration paid of Rs.4.19 Crores with interest and damages of Rs.46 Crores. The Plaintiff also sought appointment of a Court Receiver and injunctions against Defendant No.1, who was the owner of the property. The Plaintiff claimed that Defendant No.2 had represented that he had authority to enter into the agreement on behalf of Defendant No.1. However, the Plaintiff failed to produce the original agreement or any copy thereof, and the Defendants denied the existence of any such agreement. The Court noted that the Plaintiff had not even pleaded readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The Court held that without the agreement, no decree for specific performance could be granted. Further, there was no privity of contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1, as the agreement was allegedly with Defendant No.2 only. The Court dismissed the Notice of Motion and the Suit, holding that the suit was based on a non-existent agreement and that the Plaintiff had no cause of action against Defendant No.1.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Privity of Contract - Agreement with Defendant No.2 - Plaintiff sought specific performance of development agreement dated 10.11.2003 with Defendant No.2, but failed to produce the original agreement or prove its existence - Court held that without the agreement, no decree for specific performance can be granted - The suit is based on a non-existent agreement (Paras 1-10). B) Specific Performance - Privity of Contract - No Agreement with Defendant No.1 - Plaintiff claimed specific performance against Defendant No.1, but there was no agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 - Court held that there is no privity of contract between Plaintiff and Defendant No.1, and the suit against Defendant No.1 is not maintainable (Paras 1-10). C) Specific Performance - Burden of Proof - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract - Plaintiff failed to show that he was ready and willing to perform, and also failed to prove the existence of the agreement - Held that the suit is liable to be dismissed (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of an agreement dated 10.11.2003 with Defendant No.2 and whether the Plaintiff has any cause of action against Defendant No.1.
Final Decision
The Notice of Motion and the Suit are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Privity of contract
- Non-existence of agreement
- Burden of proof
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 54 Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
