Case Note & Summary
The appellant, original defendant Waman s/o Jema Jadhav, challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial court and first appellate court decreeing specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 01.06.2012 in favor of the respondent/plaintiff Govind s/o Kishan Pawar. The suit property was agricultural land. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant agreed to sell the land for Rs. 1,50,000 and received Rs. 50,000 as earnest money, with balance payable at the time of registration. The defendant denied the agreement and contended that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed. In second appeal, the High Court framed a substantial question of law: whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The High Court noted that the plaintiff did not examine any witness to show financial capacity, did not produce bank statements or evidence of arranging funds, and did not issue any notice or take steps to perform. The court held that the concurrent findings were perverse and based on no evidence. The appeal was allowed, the judgments of the courts below were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the decree. In the present case, the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence of financial capacity or steps taken to perform, and the courts below erred in granting decree without such proof. (Paras 10-15) B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Concurrent findings of fact can be interfered with if perverse or based on no evidence. Here, the lower appellate court's finding that plaintiff was ready and willing was perverse as it ignored the plaintiff's failure to prove financial readiness. (Paras 8-9) C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 101 - Burden of Proof - In a suit for specific performance, the burden lies on the plaintiff to show readiness and willingness. The plaintiff's mere assertion without corroborative evidence (e.g., bank statements, sale of assets) is insufficient. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract for specific performance of agreement to sell?
Final Decision
Second Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge, Latur dated 19-10-2018 in Civil Misc. Application No. 170 of 2018 and judgment and decree of 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Ausa dated 22-06-2018 in Regular Civil Suit No. 481 of 2012 are set aside. Suit for specific performance stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- burden of proof
- concurrent findings
- substantial question of law
