Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.16(c) – Performance of the essential terms of the contract – Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants entered into an agreement to sell the suit land with predecessor-in-interest of the respondents for total consideration of Rs. 5605/- – Out of this Rs.1000/- was paid as earnest money at the time of execution of agreement to sell – The possession of the land was handed over to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (vendee) – Since there was some litigation with regard to the property it was agreed between the parties that the sale deed would be executed within one month from the date of decision of civil appeal – Clauses of the agreement stipulated that in case decision regarding the property in civil appeal is after one year, then the predecessor-in-interest of respondents shall pay customary rent to the predecessor-in-interest of appellants – Litigation referred to in the agreement was decided after about 13 years – Predecessorin-interest of appellants failed to execute sale deed in favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondents – Suit for specific performance was filed by predecessor-in-interest of the respondents – The suit was decreed by all the Courts below – Appellants contended that since predecessor-in-interest of the respondents failed to pay the rent of the land, he was not entitled to a decree for specific performance – Held: The suit property was handed over to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and he had agreed to pay rent at the customary rate – Therefore, the possession of land was given to him only on this clear-cut understanding – This was a reciprocal promise and was an essential part of the agreement to sell – Admittedly, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents did not pay rent till the date of filing of the suit – The payment of rent was an essential part of the contract – Equity is totally against him – He by not paying the rent did not act fairly and forfeited his right to get the discretionary relief of specific performance – Thus, judgment and decree of all the Courts below set aside and suit for specific performance dismissed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. The first issue is whether the promises were reciprocal promises or promises independent of each other. There can be no hard and fast rule and the issue whether promises are reciprocal or not has to be determined in the peculiar facts of each case. As far as the present case is concerned, the vendorpredecessor-in-interest of the appellants, who was a lady received less than 20% of the sale consideration but handed over the possession to the vendee-predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, probably with the hope that the dispute would be decided soon, or at least within a year. Therefore, Clause 3 provided that if the case is not decided within one year, then the second party shall pay to the first party the customary rent for the land. It has been urged by the respondents that the High Court rightly held that this was not a reciprocal promise and had nothing to do with the sale of the land. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the land had been handed over to the vendee and he had agreed that he would pay rent at the customary rate. Therefore, the possession of the land was given to him only on this clear-cut understanding. This was, therefore, a reciprocal promise and was an essential part of the agreement to sell. [Para 9][143-A-C]
2. Admittedly, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents did not even pay a penny as rent till the date of filing of the suit. After such objection was raised in the written statement, in replication filed by him, he instead of offering to pay the rent, denied his liability to pay the same. Even if this Court was to hold that this promise was not a reciprocal promise, as far as the agreement to sell is concerned, it would definitely mean that predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had failed to perform his part of the contract. There can be no manner of doubt that the payment of rent was an essential term of the contract. Explanation
(ii) to Section 16(c) clearly lays down that the plaintiff must prove performance or readiness or willingness to perform the contract according to its true construction. The only construction which can be given to the contract in hand is that predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was required to pay customary rent. [Para 10][143-D-F]
3. In this case, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents having got possession of the land in the year 1964 did not pay the rent for 13 long years and even when he filed the replication in the year 1978, he denied any liability to pay the customary rent. Therefore, he did not act in a proper manner. Equity is totally against him. In considered view of this Court, he was not entitled to claim the discretionary relief of specific performance of the agreement having not performed his part of the contract even if that part is held to be a distinct part of the agreement to sell. The vendee by not paying the rent for 13 long years to the vendor, even when he had been put in possession of the land on payment of less than 18% of the market value, caused undue hardship to her. The land was agricultural land. predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was cultivating the same. He must have been earning a fairly large amount from this land which measured about 9½ acres. He by not paying the rent did not act fairly and, forfeited his right to get the discretionary relief of specific performance. [Para 15][144-E-H]
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.