Case Note & Summary
The respondent no.1/plaintiff, a cooperative housing society, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of land dated 30.1.1975, for a consideration of Rs. 25,000 per acre, with an earnest amount of Rs. 6,000 paid. The sale deed was to be executed within two years, i.e., on or before 30.1.1977. The plaintiff claimed readiness and willingness but alleged that the defendants (appellants) failed to execute the sale deed. The suit was filed in 1985, after the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976 came into force. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was not ready and willing and that the suit was barred by limitation. The first appellate court affirmed the dismissal. The defendants (appellants) preferred a second appeal. The High Court, considering that the litigation commenced in 1985 and the appellants were senior citizens, took up the appeal for final hearing. The court found that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the plaintiff's lack of readiness and willingness and the suit being time-barred were based on evidence and did not warrant interference under Section 100 CPC. The court noted that the plaintiff failed to prove financial capacity or any steps taken to perform the contract within the stipulated time. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the dismissal of the suit for specific performance.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract from the date of agreement till the date of decree. The court held that the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence of financial capacity and willingness to pay the balance consideration, and thus the suit was rightly dismissed. (Paras 1-10)
B) Limitation - Suit for Specific Performance - Article 54 Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit must be filed within three years from the date fixed for performance. The agreement fixed 30.1.1977 as the date for execution of sale deed. The suit was filed in 1985, beyond the period of limitation, and no explanation for the delay was provided. Hence, the suit was barred by limitation. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform its part of the contract and whether the suit for specific performance was within limitation.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the plaintiff was not ready and willing and the suit was barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Limitation
- Concurrent findings
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Article 54 Limitation Act
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (03) 148
SECOND APPEAL NO. 235/2012
Mr. V.V. Bhangde for appellants, Mr. K.H.Deshpande Sr.Adv. with Mr. S.M.Patrikar and Akshay Sudame for respondent no.1, Mrs. Geeta Tiwari AGP for respondent no.3
Smt. C. Padmawati Naidu, Smt.S.Rajlaxmi w/o Suresh Naidu, C. Mrudula Naidu, Kalpana Rao Bonda
Friends Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., C. Jogeshwar Rao @ Shriram Naidu, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second appeal against dismissal of suit for specific performance of contract.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (original defendants) sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court which affirmed the dismissal of the suit for specific performance.
Filing Reason
The appellants were aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 307/1999 passed by the learned District Judge-9, Nagpur, which arose out of the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1999 in Special Civil Suit No. 564/1985 passed by 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur.
Previous Decisions
The trial court dismissed the suit for specific performance. The first appellate court affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform its part of the contract?
Whether the suit for specific performance was within limitation?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness and the suit was barred by limitation.
Respondent no.1/plaintiff argued that it was ready and willing and the suit was within time.
Ratio Decidendi
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract from the date of agreement till the date of decree. Failure to do so results in dismissal. Additionally, the suit must be filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, i.e., three years from the date fixed for performance.
Judgment Excerpts
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 307/1999 passed by the learned District Judge9, Nagpur, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1999 in Special Civil Suit No. 564/1985 passed by 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the original defendants.
The Appeal has been taken up for final hearing as almost all the appellants are senior citizens and the litigation commenced in the year 1985, on the motion made by the counsel for the parties.
Procedural History
The respondent no.1/plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 564/1985 in 1985 for specific performance. The trial court dismissed the suit on 21.04.1999. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court, which dismissed the appeal on 04.10.2011. The defendants then filed the present second appeal in 2012, which was dismissed by the High Court on 04.03.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
- Limitation Act, 1963: Article 54
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 100
