Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 10.11.1989 concerning 2/3 of the lands owned by the defendants. The plaintiff claimed to have paid Rs. 50,000 as earnest money, with a balance of Rs. 3,10,490 due at execution, which was to occur by 30.04.1990. The Trial Court initially decreed the suit, finding the plaintiff present for registration, but the High Court later set aside this order, leading to the current appeal. The plaintiff argued that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding his readiness to perform. The defendants contended that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness, citing notices sent to him that went unanswered. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence, noting that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient proof of his capacity to perform the contract, particularly failing to deposit the balance consideration within the time granted. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's application for an extension of time, filed after the deadline, indicated a lack of readiness. The court also referenced precedents that underscored the necessity for the plaintiff to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof required for specific performance, but ordered the return of the earnest money without interest. The decision was made on 2019-10-04.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Burden of Proof - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16 - The plaintiff failed to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform obligations under the agreement, as he did not deposit the balance consideration within the stipulated time and provided no sufficient explanation for the delay. The court held that the plaintiff's conduct reflected incapacity to perform, justifying the High Court's dismissal of the appeal (Paras 10-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform obligations under the agreement for sale.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the agreement for sale. The court ordered the refund of the earnest money without interest within one month, failing which it would carry interest at 7%. No order as to costs was made.
Law Points
- specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- concurrent findings
- discretionary relief
- equitable considerations
