Case Note & Summary
This regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenged the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapura in O.S. No. 265/2007. The suit was instituted by the respondents-plaintiffs seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 29.03.2006 executed by the appellant-defendant. The defendant, owner of the suit property, had agreed to sell it for a total consideration of Rs.15,18,750 and received an advance of Rs.3,00,000. The agreement stipulated a three-month period for the defendant to procure necessary documents and complete the sale. The plaintiffs alleged that they were ready and willing to perform their part, approached the defendant in June 2006, but were asked to wait until November 2006. When they approached again in November 2006, the defendant avoided them. A legal notice dated 29.12.2006 was issued, but the defendant sent an evasive reply. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance. The defendant admitted the execution of the agreement and receipt of advance but contended that the plaintiffs were never ready and willing, failed to prove financial capacity, and the suit was barred by limitation because time was of the essence. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence including the agreement (Ex.P.4) and the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, found that the plaintiffs had proved readiness and willingness, that the suit was within limitation, and decreed the suit directing the defendant to execute the sale deed upon payment of the balance consideration within sixty days. The defendant appealed, raising grounds that the decree was contrary to Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 due to lack of proof of continuous readiness and financial capacity, and that the trial court could not have granted possession in the absence of a specific prayer under Section 22(2). The plaintiffs respondents defended the decree, arguing that the plaint contained sufficient averments, P.W.1’s evidence was unchallenged on financial capacity, and the balance consideration had been deposited in court. The High Court heard the parties and reserved judgment, framing points on readiness and willingness, justification of the decree, and interference. The judgment text provided ends mid-discussion, and the final outcome of the appeal is not disclosed in the available excerpt.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The dispute centered on an agreement of sale dated 29.03.2006 for Rs.15,18,750 with an advance of Rs.3,00,000. The plaintiffs contended they were always ready and willing, approached the defendant in June and November 2006, and issued legal notice on 29.12.2006. The defendant admitted the agreement but alleged the plaintiffs lacked financial capacity and readiness. The court examined the pleadings and evidence, noting that the plaintiffs averred readiness in the plaint and the witness P.W.1 deposed about readiness without any cross-examination on financial capacity. The trial court held readiness and willingness proved and decreed the suit. The appeal raised the question whether mere averments sufficed without documentary proof of funds. (Paras 2-3, 6, 8-10, 14). B) Specific Performance - Decree for Possession - Section 22(2) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The appellant-defendant argued that in the absence of a specific prayer for delivery of possession, the trial court could not direct the defendant to put the plaintiffs in possession of the suit property. The court considered this contention in light of the statutory requirement that possession may be granted only if specifically claimed. (Paras 8, 12). C) Limitation - Suit for Specific Performance - Limitation Act, 1963 - The defendant pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation, as time was of the essence and the plaintiffs did not act within the three months fixed. The trial court held the suit was not time-barred. The High Court framed a point whether the suit was within limitation as part of the appeal scope. (Paras 3, 6, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs proved continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract as mandated by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and whether the trial court could grant a decree for possession without a specific prayer therefor under Section 22(2) of the Act.
Law Points
- specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 22(2) of Specific Relief Act
- plaint averments
- financial capacity
- time for performance
- limitation
- decree for possession
- Civil Procedure Code
- Order 41 Rule 1
