R. Shama Naik vs G. Srinivasiah

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

28 November 2024

Case No.

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13933 of 2021

Result

Dismissed

Bench

J.B. Pardiwala, R Mahadevan

Citation

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1325 : 2024 INSC 927

Acts & Sections

Specific Relief Act, 1963

Issue for consideration

Whether plaintiff failed to establish that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

Headnote

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.16(c) – Petitioner-original plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based on agreement to sale dated 03.03.2005 – It is the case of the petitioner that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – The trial court allowed the suit and passed a decree for specific performance – However, the High Court held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – Interference required or not:

Held: Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (prior to amendment w.e.f. 1.10.2018) bars the relief of the specific performance of a contract in favour of a person who fails to aver readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract – The law is well settled – The plaintiff is obliged not only to make specific statement and averments in the plaint but is also obliged to adduce necessary oral and documentary evidence to show the availability of funds to make payment in terms of the contract in time – There is a fine distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract – Both the ingredients are necessary for the relief of specific performance – While readiness means the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the plaintiff – The High Court in first appeal upon appreciation of the evidence on record both oral and documentary has arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – This being a finding of fact and cannot be termed as perverse, there is no good reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. [Paras 8, 10, 12, 13, 14]

Order 1. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Regular First Appeal No. 1017 of 2013 dated 01-07-2021 by which the Regular First Appeal filed by the original defendant came to be allowed thereby quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree of specific performance passed by the trial court in favour of the petitioner herein-original plaintiff. 2. It appears that the petitioner herein original plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based on agreement of sale dated 3rd March 2005. 3. The total sale

View Subscription Plans →