Case Note & Summary
The appellant-original defendant filed a second appeal against the concurrent decrees for specific performance of an agreement to sell passed by the trial court and the first appellate court. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the plaintiff's readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and whether the findings were perverse. The High Court, after hearing counsel and perusing the record, held that the plaint as a whole clearly indicated the plaintiff's readiness and willingness, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Motilal Jain v. Ramdasi Devi. The court found no perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the appeal, also noting that issues of limitation and laches were mixed questions of law and fact not warranting interference in a second appeal.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) - Averment in Plaint - The court held that an averment of readiness and willingness in the plaint is not a mathematical formula requiring specific words; if the plaint as a whole clearly indicates readiness and willingness, it is sufficient. The concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts that the plaintiff was ready and willing were not perverse. (Paras 6-7)
B) Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Interference with Concurrent Findings - The court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse. The issues of limitation and laches were held to be mixed questions of law and fact, not pure questions of law. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and whether the findings of readiness and willingness were perverse.
Final Decision
The second appeal is dismissed. The concurrent decrees for specific performance are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- need not be in specific words
- plaint as a whole must indicate readiness and willingness
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
- Limitation and laches are mixed questions of law and fact
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 251
Second Appeal No.202 of 2019 with Civil Application No.146 of 2019
Mr. Girish R. Agrawal for the Appellant, Mrs. A.R.S. Baxi i/b S.H. Bohra for the Respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against concurrent decrees for specific performance of an agreement to sell.
Remedy Sought
Appellant-original defendant sought admission of the second appeal and setting aside of the decrees for specific performance.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the concurrent findings of readiness and willingness as perverse and inconsistent with evidence.
Previous Decisions
Trial court and first appellate court decreed specific performance in favor of the plaintiff-respondent.
Issues
Whether the findings of readiness and willingness recorded by the trial and first appellate courts are perverse?
Whether the plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?
Whether the suit was barred by limitation or the plaintiff guilty of negligence/laches?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the findings of readiness and willingness were inconsistent with evidence and perverse.
Appellant contended that the plaintiff failed to establish the ingredients of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Respondent supported the concurrent findings and argued that the plaint as a whole indicated readiness and willingness.
Ratio Decidendi
An averment of readiness and willingness in the plaint is not a mathematical formula requiring specific words; if the plaint as a whole clearly indicates readiness and willingness, it is sufficient to satisfy Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
An averment of readiness and willingness in the plaint is not a mathematical formula which should only be in specific words. If the averments in the plaint as a whole do clearly indicate the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to fulfil his part of the obligations under the contract which is the subject-matter of the suit, the fact that they are differently worded will not militate against the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The trial court decreed the suit. The first appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendant filed a second appeal before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
