Case Note & Summary
The second appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 15.7.1987 between the plaintiff (first respondent) and the first defendant (since deceased). The agreement covered suit property for Rs. 2,16,000, with Rs. 50,000 paid as advance. The plaintiff was put into possession on the same day and converted the land into house sites. The second defendant (appellant), an adjacent landowner, subsequently purchased the property from the first defendant and was impleaded. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed. In second appeal, the appellant challenged the concurrent findings on readiness and willingness, limitation, and her status as a bona fide purchaser. The High Court held that the plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness by paying advance, taking possession, filing suit within limitation, and depositing balance consideration. The appellant, being aware of the agreement as an adjacent owner and having filed a prior suit, was not a bona fide purchaser without notice. The suit was within limitation as the agreement fixed 12 months from 15.7.1987, and the suit was filed on 26.10.1990. The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the decree for specific performance.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till decree - In the instant case, plaintiff paid advance, took possession, and filed suit within limitation - Held that plaintiff's conduct and evidence established readiness and willingness (Paras 10-15). B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 19(b) - Subsequent Purchaser - A subsequent purchaser with notice of prior agreement is bound by the decree of specific performance - Appellant, being adjacent owner and aware of the agreement, cannot claim bona fide purchase - Held that appellant is not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice (Paras 16-20). C) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Suit for Specific Performance - Limitation period is three years from the date fixed for performance or from notice of refusal - Agreement fixed 12 months from 15.7.1987, suit filed on 26.10.1990 within limitation - Held that suit is not barred by limitation (Paras 21-23). D) Easement Act, 1882 - Section 15 - Easement by Prescription - Plaintiff claimed cart track used for 70 years - However, issue not pressed in appeal - Held that no finding required (Para 24).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and whether the subsequent purchaser (appellant) can resist specific performance.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court confirming the Trial Court's decree for specific performance are upheld. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Subsequent purchaser
- Burden of proof
- Limitation
- Adverse possession
- Easementary right
