Case Note & Summary
The appellant, T. Narayana, filed a Regular First Appeal before the High Court of Karnataka against the dismissal of his suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 20.06.1994. The appellant claimed that the original defendant, Rangaswamy (since deceased, represented by legal representatives), had agreed to sell a property for Rs. 1,50,000 and received an advance of Rs. 1,20,000. The appellant alleged that the defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated demands. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the agreement and his readiness and willingness to perform the contract. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the plaintiff's pleadings were inconsistent regarding the date of payment and the description of the property. The plaintiff did not produce any documentary evidence to show his financial capacity or any steps taken to perform the contract. The court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which requires continuous readiness and willingness. The court also noted that the agreement was not proved as a genuine transaction. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's judgment and decree.
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 found that the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence of financial capacity or steps taken to perform the contract, and therefore the decree for specific performance was rightly denied. (Paras 10-15) B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Agreement to Sell - The burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution and validity of the agreement. The court noted discrepancies in the plaintiff's pleadings regarding the date of payment and the description of the suit property, and held that the agreement was not proved as a genuine transaction. (Paras 8-12) C) Specific Relief Act - Discretionary Relief - Section 20 Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Grant of specific performance is discretionary and the court may refuse relief if the plaintiff has not come with clean hands or if the agreement is not genuine. The court upheld the trial court's refusal to grant specific performance due to the plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness. (Paras 13-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 20.06.1994, and whether the plaintiff had proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree of the trial court affirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Burden of proof
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 20 Specific Relief Act
