Case Note & Summary
The appellants (original defendants) challenged the order of the Extra Adhoc District Judge, Kelapur, dated 19.1.2011, in Regular Civil Appeal No.181 of 2002, which confirmed the trial court's decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of land. The original plaintiff, Champatrao Laxmanrao Kale (since deceased, represented by his legal heirs), had filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement dated 12.5.1988 for sale of land for Rs. 1,00,000. The plaintiff claimed that he paid Rs. 25,000 as earnest money and was ready and willing to pay the balance, but the defendants did not execute the sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed it. The High Court framed the question whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness. The court noted that the plaintiff did not examine himself or any witness to show that he had the money or made efforts to arrange it. The only evidence was the agreement and a notice. The court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court observed that even if time was not the essence, the plaintiff must show continuous readiness. The conduct of the plaintiff in not depositing the balance or showing financial capacity indicated lack of readiness. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decrees of the courts below, and dismissed the suit.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the decree. In this case, the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of having sufficient funds or making efforts to arrange the balance consideration. The court held that mere filing of suit does not prove readiness and willingness. (Paras 5-7) B) Specific Performance - Time Not Essence of Contract - Conduct of Plaintiff - Even if time is not the essence of the contract, the plaintiff must show that he was always ready and willing to perform. The plaintiff's conduct of not depositing the balance amount or showing financial capacity indicated lack of readiness. The appellate court erred in decreeing the suit. (Paras 6-8) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Section 101 Evidence Act, 1872 - The burden to prove readiness and willingness lies on the plaintiff. In the absence of any documentary evidence of funds or steps taken to arrange money, the plaintiff cannot be said to have discharged the burden. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract for sale of land, and whether the trial court and first appellate court correctly decreed specific performance despite the plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The order dated 19.1.2011 passed by the Extra Adhoc District Judge, Kelapur, in Regular Civil Appeal No.181 of 2002, and the decree of the trial court, are set aside. The suit for specific performance stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- time not essence of contract
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- burden of proof
- conduct of plaintiff
