Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Judgment in Specific Performance Case — Restores Trial Court's Decision. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, leading to the restoration of the trial court's decree for alternative relief.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a suit filed by the respondents seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 26.03.2007 concerning property owned by the appellants. The trial court partially decreed the suit, denying specific performance but awarding an alternative relief of Rs. 75 lakhs with interest. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court, which set aside the trial court's judgment and directed the appellants to execute the sale deed. The appellants challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to complete the transaction. The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiffs had paid an advance of Rs. 75 lakhs but failed to demonstrate continuous financial capacity to pay the remaining balance. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs' subsequent agreement with a third party indicated a lack of intention to pursue the original agreement. Ultimately, the Supreme Court restored the trial court's judgment, directing the appellants to refund the advance amount with interest, while creating a charge over the properties to ensure repayment.

Headnote

A) Contract Law - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 96 - The court examined the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform the contract, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to prove continuous financial capacity to complete the transaction. The trial court's decision to grant alternative relief was upheld, emphasizing the necessity of demonstrating readiness and willingness for specific performance (Paras 24-24).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract for specific performance.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's decision, directing the defendants to refund Rs. 75 lakhs with interest at 9% per annum within three months, failing which the interest would increase to 12%. A charge was created over the suit properties to ensure repayment.

Law Points

  • specific performance
  • readiness and willingness
  • Civil Procedure Code
  • 1908
  • appeal
  • decree
  • interest
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (SC) (08) 206

Civil Appeal Nos. 6449 of 2019

2019-08-20

A.S. Bopanna, R. Banumathi

Shri Jayanth Muth Raj, Shri R.N. Ravindran

Abdullakoya Haji & Ors.

Rubis Tharayil & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for specific performance of a sale agreement.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiffs sought specific performance of the agreement for sale.

Filing Reason

Plaintiffs claimed defendants failed to execute the sale deed despite readiness to pay the balance.

Previous Decisions

Trial court denied specific performance but awarded alternative relief; High Court reversed this decision.

Issues

Whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract for specific performance.

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiffs argued they were ready and willing to complete the transaction and had sufficient funds. Defendants contended that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate continuous financial capacity and entered into a subsequent agreement with a third party.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which is essential for granting specific performance.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaintiffs were required to arrange the total balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,31,79,700. The judgment dated 21.08.2018 passed in RFA No. 344/2011 is set aside and the judgment dated 30.07.2008 in OS No. 89/2008 is restored.

Procedural History

The trial court decreed the suit in part on 23.12.2010, awarding alternative relief. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court, which set aside the trial court's judgment on 21.08.2018, leading to the current appeal in the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in Maharashtra Prohibition Act Case — No Offence Made Out as Mere Drunkenness Without Public Misbehaviour Does Not Attract Section 85. Section 85 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 Requires Both Being Under Influ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Convicted Assistant Station Master in Prevention of Corruption Act Case Upholding Bribery Conviction. Trap Laid by Executive Magistrate and Recovery of Marked Currency Note from Accused's Hand Upheld as Valid Investi...