Case Note & Summary
The appellant (defendant) appealed against the judgment and decree dated 27/03/2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Principal J.M.F.C., K.G.F. in O.S.No.51/2014, which decreed the suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property. The respondent (plaintiff) had filed the suit alleging that the appellant agreed to sell a property for Rs. 3,50,000/- and received an advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 01/08/2011, with the balance to be paid within six months. The plaintiff claimed he was ready and willing to perform but the defendant failed to execute the sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit directing the defendant to execute the sale deed upon payment of the balance consideration. The defendant appealed. The High Court framed the issue of whether the plaintiff had proved his continuous readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court examined the plaint and evidence and found that the plaintiff did not plead or prove his financial capacity to pay the balance amount. The plaintiff did not state in the plaint that he had the money ready or that he made any attempt to pay. The only evidence was his oral statement that he was ready, which was not corroborated by any bank statement or other proof. The court held that mere assertion of readiness is not enough; the plaintiff must show continuous readiness and willingness from the date of the contract till the decree. Since the plaintiff failed to discharge this burden, the suit was not maintainable. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, and dismissed the suit with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of the agreement till the date of decree. Mere filing of suit is not sufficient; the plaintiff must show financial capacity and steps taken to perform. In the absence of such pleading and evidence, the suit for specific performance is liable to be dismissed. (Paras 10-18) B) Civil Procedure Code - Appeal - First Appeal - Section 96 CPC - The appellate court can re-appreciate evidence and interfere with findings of fact if the trial court has misappreciated evidence or applied wrong legal principles. (Para 9) C) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Section 101 Evidence Act, 1872 - The plaintiff who seeks specific performance bears the burden to prove his readiness and willingness. The defendant need not prove the plaintiff's lack of readiness. (Paras 10-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff has proved his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and whether the suit for specific performance is maintainable in the absence of such proof.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 27/03/2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Principal J.M.F.C., K.G.F. in O.S.No.51/2014, and dismissed the suit. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Burden of proof
- Pleading and proof
- Continuous readiness
- Financial capacity
- Time is not essence but readiness must be shown
- Plaintiff must aver and prove readiness throughout
