Case Note & Summary
The case involves a First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the original defendant No. 2 (appellant) challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2001 passed by the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 9 of 1995. The plaintiff (respondent) had sought specific performance of an agreement to purchase a property consisting of ground floor, first floor, and open land with three shops occupied by tenants, situated in Sub-plot No. 1A of Mahagujarat Saurabh Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Naranpura, Ahmedabad. The sale price was fixed at Rs.5,50,000/- plus Rs.50,000/- towards society transfer fees. The plaintiff paid Rs.25,000/-, Rs.1,75,000/- by demand drafts, and an additional Rs.3,50,000/- to defendant No. 1, who issued receipts. Possession of the ground floor and open land was handed over to the plaintiff on 28.12.1994, and defendant No. 2 issued a public notice for title clearance. The plaintiff then filed the suit for specific performance, possession of the first floor, and permanent injunction. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The appellant-defendant No. 2 challenged the decree on the ground that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness. The plaintiff did not deposit the balance consideration in court or demonstrate financial capacity to pay. The court noted that the plaintiff's conduct was inconsistent and he had not come with clean hands. The High Court held that the trial court's decree was based on erroneous appreciation of evidence and set aside the judgment and decree, allowing the appeal. The court also disposed of the connected civil application.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the decree. Mere payment of part consideration does not suffice; the plaintiff must show financial capacity and willingness to pay the balance. In this case, the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness as he did not deposit the balance consideration or demonstrate financial capacity. (Paras 7-12) B) Specific Relief Act - Section 20 - Discretionary Relief - Conduct of Plaintiff - Even if a valid agreement exists, specific performance is a discretionary remedy. The court may refuse relief if the plaintiff's conduct is inequitable or if he has not come with clean hands. Here, the plaintiff's failure to pay the balance amount and his inconsistent stand disentitled him to relief. (Paras 13-15) C) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - First Appeal - Appellate Court's Power - The appellate court can re-appreciate evidence and interfere with findings of fact if the trial court's conclusions are perverse or based on no evidence. The High Court found that the trial court's decree was based on erroneous appreciation of evidence regarding readiness and willingness. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and whether the trial court erred in decreeing specific performance despite the plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2001 passed by the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 9 of 1995, and dismissed the suit. The connected civil application also stands disposed of.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- readiness and willingness
- burden of proof
- plaintiff's conduct
- payment of balance consideration
- time is not essence but must be performed within reasonable time
