Case Note & Summary
The case involves a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property. The original plaintiff, a builder-developer, agreed to purchase a property from the original defendant in 1984 for Rs.1,85,000. An agreement dated 5.7.1984 was executed, and earnest money of Rs.18,500 was paid. The plaintiff also paid property tax of Rs.316.50 for 1983-1984. Despite the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration and his insistence on execution of the sale deed, the defendant avoided performance. The plaintiff sent a legal notice and thereafter filed the suit in 1987 for specific performance and damages. The defendant contested, denying the agreement. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed. The High Court, after hearing, held that the plaintiff had proved his readiness and willingness, and the suit was not barred by limitation or delay. The appeal was dismissed, and the decree for specific performance was upheld.
Headnote
A) 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 decree - The court held that the plaintiff's conduct in paying earnest money, property tax, and sending legal notice demonstrated readiness and willingness, and the defendant's failure to execute sale deed justified decree for specific performance (Paras 3-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation or delay.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Decree for specific performance passed by the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai in Suit No.9933 of 1987 dated 21.7.2017 is upheld.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Earnest money
- Limitation
- Delay and laches
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (12) 156
First Appeal No.1161 of 2017 with Civil Application No.3214 of 2017
Mr. Navin Parekh i/b. Girin Pandit for appellants; Mr. Atit Shukla a/w. Mr. Dharmesh Pandya, Tejal Kurdukar i/b. Ashwin Pandya and Associates for respondent nos. 1 to 3
Ajay Avinash Solanki & Ors.
Mrs. Asha Umesh Yadav & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property
Remedy Sought
Decree for specific performance of agreement dated 5.7.1984, compensation of Rs.3 lakhs with interest @ 18%, and alternatively refund of earnest money
Filing Reason
Defendant failed to execute sale deed despite plaintiff's readiness and willingness to pay balance consideration
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed the suit on 21.7.2017
Issues
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?
Whether the suit is barred by limitation or delay?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the plaintiff was not ready and willing and that the suit was barred by delay.
Respondents argued that the plaintiff had paid earnest money, property tax, and sent legal notice, demonstrating readiness and willingness.
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiff's payment of earnest money, property tax, and sending of legal notice, coupled with the defendant's failure to execute the sale deed, establishes the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the suit is not barred by limitation or delay.
Judgment Excerpts
The plaintiff thereafter paid property tax of Rs.316.50ps for the year 1983-1984.
The deceased plaintiff was ready and willing to pay his remaining part of the consideration amount and accordingly, sent legal notice to the deceased-defendant.
Procedural History
Suit No.9933 of 1987 filed in City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai; decree passed on 21.7.2017; First Appeal No.1161 of 2017 filed by defendants; appeal heard and dismissed on 5.12.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
