Specific performance – Suit for specific performance – Respondent No.1 executed agreement to sell dated 13.03.2007 in favour of appellant-buyer agreeing to sell the land in question on or before 31.07.2007 for a sale consideration of Rs.12.74 lakhs Rs. 3 lakhs were paid as earnest money – Respondent No.1 however did not execute the sale deed – Appellant-buyer filed suit for specific performance on 14.02.2008 – Trial court decreed the suit – High Court set aside the judgment of trial court, mainly on ground that appellant–plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – Held: On facts, the High Court materially erred in reversing the findings of the trial court on readiness and willingness of the appellant – Reasoning given by the High Court was that plaintiff had not proved that he had cash and/or amount and/or sufficient funds/means to pay the balance sale consideration, as no passbook and/or bank accounts was produced – However, in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Indira Kaur and Ramrati Kuer cases, unless the plaintiff was called upon to produce the passbook either by the defendant or, the Court ordered him to do so, no adverse inference could have been drawn by the High Court – Judgment of High Court therefore unsustainable – However, for complete justice, appellant to pay to respondent no.1 a further sum of Rs.10 lakhs and on such payment, respondent no.1 to execute sale deed in favour of appellant.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court materially erred in reversing the decree by reversing the findings of the Trial Court on readiness and willingness of the appellant. [Para 6][238-F]
2.1. It appears that the reasoning given by the High Court is that the plaintiff has not proved that he had the cash and/or amount and/or sufficient funds/means to pay the balance sale consideration, as no passbook and/or bank accounts was produced. [Para 6.1][238-G]
2.2. However, in the case of Indira Kaur, this Court after considering the observations made by this Court in the case of Ramrati Kuer set aside the findings recorded by three courts below whereby an adverse inference had been drawn against the plaintiff therein for not producing the passbook and thereby holding that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. It was observed and held that unless the plaintiff was called upon to produce the passbook either by the defendant or, the Court orders him to do so, no adverse inference can be drawn. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two cases to the facts of the case on hand, no adverse inference could have been drawn by the High Court. The High Court seriously erred in reversing the findings recorded by the Trial Court on the readiness and willingness of the appellant. [Para 6.2 and 6.3][239-F-H; 240-A]
3. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is unsustainable. However, at the same time, to do complete justice, the plaintiff is directed to pay to defendant No. 1 a further sum of Rs. 10 lakhs and on such payment, defendant No. 1 is directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the original plaintiff – appellant. [Para 7][240-B-C]
Indira Kaur and Ors. v. Sheo Lal Kapoor, (1988) 2 SCC
488 and Ramrati Kuer v. Dwarika Prasad Singh, (1967)
1 SCR 153 – relied on.
Beemaneni Maha Lakshmi v. Gangumalla Appa Rao, (2019) 6 SCC 233 : [2019] 7 SCR 490; J.P. Builders and Anr. v. A. Ramadas and Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 429 : [2010] 15 SCR 538 and U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 840 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.