Specific Performance:
Suit for specific performance – Seeking enforcement of agreement to sell the suit property – Dismissed by trial court holding that the plaintiff failed to prove her readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract – Finding of trial court affirmed by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The statement of the plaintiff regarding sufficiency of financial resources to buy the suit property was without any corroborating documentary evidence – Such statement cannot be relied upon to return a finding that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of contract – Finding recorded by courts below does not suffer from any illegality.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: The sole document relied upon by the appellant to prove her readiness and willingness is the approval of loan on July 30, 2004 by the Bank. Such approval was subject to two conditions, viz., furnishing of income tax documents of the appellant and the property documents. The Bank had sent an Email on May 12, 2005 to the husband of the appellant requiring an Agreement to Sell on a stamp paper of Rs.50/- to be executed between the parties, as per the legal opinion sought from the empaneled lawyer, without which the Bank would not be able to disburse the loan. Admittedly, no agreement was executed on stamp paper, therefore, the appellant could not avail loan of Rs.50 lakhs from the Bank. Independent of such loan, there is mere statement that appellant and her husband have income of Rs.80 lakhs per annum unsupported by any documentary evidence. Such statement will be in the nature of ipsi dixit of the appellant and/or her husband and is without any corroborating evidence. Such self349 serving statements without any proof of financial resources cannot be relied upon to return a finding that the appellant was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. The appellant has not produced any income tax record or the Bank Statement in support of her plea of financial capacity so as to be ready and willing to perform the contract. Therefore, mere fact that the Bank has assessed the financial capacity of the appellant while granting loan earlier in respect of another property is not sufficient to discharge of proof of financial capacity in the facts of the present case to hold that the appellant was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. [Para 15] [356-A-E]
A Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed (2017) 4 SCC 654 : [2017] 2 SCR 610 – distinguished.
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.