Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Suit for Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell — Plaintiff Fails to Prove Readiness and Willingness. Agreement to Sell Dated 2004 Not Enforceable as Plaintiff Did Not Show Financial Capacity or Deposit Balance Consideration.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 115
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a First Appeal filed by the original defendants against the decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 15.04.2004. The plaintiff-respondent claimed that the defendants agreed to sell a property for Rs. 1,50,000 and received an advance of Rs. 50,000. The plaintiff alleged that despite repeated requests, the defendants did not execute the sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit. The High Court reversed the decree, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The court noted that the plaintiff did not deposit the balance consideration in court or show financial capacity. The appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Specific Relief Act - 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. Mere filing of suit is not sufficient. The court must examine the conduct of the plaintiff and his financial capacity. (Paras 10-15)

B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Onus on Plaintiff - Section 101 Evidence Act, 1872 - The burden to prove readiness and willingness lies on the plaintiff. In the absence of evidence of financial capacity or deposit of balance consideration, the plaintiff fails to discharge the burden. (Paras 12-14)

C) Contract Act - Agreement to Sell - Time is not Essence - However, plaintiff must still show readiness. Even if time is not of essence, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he was prepared to perform. (Para 11)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Decree of trial court set aside. Suit for specific performance dismissed.

Law Points

  • Specific performance
  • readiness and willingness
  • burden of proof
  • agreement to sell
  • Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
  • 1963
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (10) 3

First Appeal No. 3027 of 2015

0000-00-00

Shaikh Arshad Mahebub and Isaq Jafer Miyan Jahagirdar

Sayyed Samir Shah Mahmood and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

First Appeal against decree of specific performance of agreement to sell immovable property.

Remedy Sought

Appellants (original defendants) sought dismissal of the suit for specific performance.

Filing Reason

Plaintiff claimed defendants failed to execute sale deed despite receiving advance consideration.

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed the suit in favor of plaintiff.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiff argued that he was ready and willing to perform. Defendants argued that plaintiff failed to show financial capacity or deposit balance amount.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Mere filing of suit is not enough. The plaintiff must show financial capacity or deposit of balance consideration. In this case, the plaintiff failed to do so.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Mere filing of the suit is not sufficient to prove readiness and willingness.

Procedural History

Original suit for specific performance was decreed by trial court. Defendants filed First Appeal before High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 101
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Delayed FIR. Conviction under Sections 376, 452, 506 IPC Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Petitioner in Arbitration Dispute — Clarifies Jurisdictional Issues Regarding Seat of Arbitration.