Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 25.04.2007 between the plaintiff (appellant) and the defendant (respondent). The agreement covered 75 ¾ cents of land with improvements, for a total consideration of Rs.34,000 per cent. An advance of Rs.2,00,000 was paid, and a further Rs.3,00,000 was paid by cheque on 25.08.2007. The last date for performance was fixed as 24.03.2008, and time was expressly made an essential part of the agreement. The defendant sent a lawyer's notice on 25.01.2008 calling upon the plaintiff to complete the transaction. The plaintiff replied on 18.03.2008, alleging that the defendant had not measured the property or produced title deeds, and that the actual extent was only 70.950 cents, with some portions belonging to others. On 24.03.2008, the plaintiff claimed to be present at the Sub Registrar's office but the defendant was unavailable. The plaintiff filed a police complaint and a petition before the Sub Registrar, and then instituted the suit on 27.03.2008. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was ready and willing and that the defendant had committed breach. The High Court reversed the decree, finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove readiness and willingness. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff did not demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The court noted that the plaintiff did not tender the balance consideration or take any steps to complete the sale within the stipulated time. The plaintiff's explanation that the defendant had not measured the property was not sufficient, as the agreement required the plaintiff to be convinced of title and the defendant's obligation to measure was not absolute. The court also observed that the plaintiff's evidence regarding his financial capacity was weak, as most documents were post-suit. The court upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissing the suit for specific performance.
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 the agreement until the date of the decree. The court must examine the conduct of the plaintiff and the surrounding circumstances. (Paras 2-7) B) Contract Law - Time is of the Essence - Agreement for Sale - Where the agreement expressly stipulates time as an essential term, the court must give effect to it. The plaintiff's failure to tender performance within the stipulated time, without valid excuse, disentitles him to specific performance. (Paras 2-4) C) Evidence - Sufficiency of Funds - Capacity to Pay - The plaintiff need not carry the entire balance consideration at all times, but must demonstrate that he had the capacity to raise the funds when required. Mere production of post-suit documents showing assets may not be sufficient. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract for specific performance of an agreement for sale, and whether the defendant committed breach of contract.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment which reversed the trial court's decree and dismissed the suit for specific performance.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Time is of the essence
- Burden of proof
- Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act
- 1963
