Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 10.06.2006. The plaintiff, T.K.Kandhaswamy, sought to enforce the agreement against the defendants (appellants) for the sale of suit property for a total consideration of Rs. 1,10,12,600/-, out of which Rs. 55,06,300/- was paid as advance. The balance of Rs. 55,06,300/- was to be paid within one year. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated demands. The trial court decreed the suit on 12.09.2011, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed upon payment of the balance. The defendants appealed. The High Court framed the primary issue of whether the plaintiff had proved continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The court noted that the plaintiff did not deposit the balance amount in court or demonstrate financial capacity. The plaintiff's evidence was found lacking in showing any steps taken to arrange funds. The court also observed that the suit was filed within limitation but the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness. Relying on precedents, the court held that mere filing of suit does not prove readiness. The appeal was allowed, the trial court decree was set aside, and the suit was dismissed. The court directed refund of the advance amount of Rs. 55,06,300/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the date of decree. The court held that mere payment of advance and filing of suit is insufficient; the plaintiff must demonstrate financial capacity and actual willingness throughout. (Paras 15-25) B) Limitation - Suit for Specific Performance - Article 54 Limitation Act, 1963 - The period of limitation for a suit for specific performance is three years from the date fixed for performance, or if no such date, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. The court examined whether the suit was within limitation. (Paras 10-12) C) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Section 101 Evidence Act, 1872 - The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness. The court found that the plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence of financial capacity or steps taken to secure the balance consideration. (Paras 18-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale 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.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and decree of the Principal District Court, Namakkal dated 12.09.2011 in O.S. No.78 of 2009 is set aside. The suit is dismissed. The appellants are directed to refund the advance amount of Rs. 55,06,300/- to the respondents with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- burden of proof
- limitation
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 54 Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
