Case Note & Summary
The case involves two first appeals filed by Veljiben V. Satra and Nitin V. Satra (appellants) against the judgment and decree dated 30/06/2016 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay, in L.C. Suit No. 1234 of 1990. The appellants were the original plaintiffs who had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 01/10/1985 in respect of a property situated at Goregaon, Mumbai. The respondents were the original defendants, including the owners of the property and other parties. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract continuously from the date of the agreement to the date of the decree. The appellants challenged this dismissal in the High Court. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeals, upholding the trial court's discretion to refuse specific performance. The court held that the burden to prove readiness and willingness is continuous and that the plaintiffs had not shown that they were ready and willing to pay the balance consideration. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had not deposited the balance amount in court and had delayed in making payment. The court further held that the trial court's discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was properly exercised and that there was no ground to interfere with the same. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The court has discretion to refuse specific performance even if the plaintiff is ready and willing, if the conduct of the plaintiff or other circumstances make it inequitable to grant the decree. The burden to prove readiness and willingness is continuous from the date of the contract to the date of the decree. (Paras 10-15) B) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance - Conduct of Plaintiff - Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff must not only prove readiness and willingness but also show that he has performed or been ready to perform his part of the contract. Delay in payment of balance consideration and failure to deposit the amount in court may disentitle the plaintiff to specific performance. (Paras 16-20) C) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance - Discretion of Court - Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The court's discretion to grant or refuse specific performance is judicial and must be exercised on sound legal principles. The appellate court will not interfere with the trial court's discretion unless it is shown to be perverse or based on wrong principles. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants (original plaintiffs) were entitled to a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 01/10/1985, and whether the trial court erred in dismissing the suit despite finding that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.
Final Decision
Both first appeals are dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Section 20 Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Discretion of court
- Continuous burden of proof
- Conduct of plaintiff
