JAGJIT SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. vs. AMARJIT SINGH

1 NON­REPORTABLE

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  9124  OF 2018

Versus

J U D G M E N T Deepak Gupta, J.

hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”, filed a suit for specific performance of contract.  He alleged that he had entered into an agreement dated 17.10.2000 with Jagjit Singh (since deceased, the appellant herein) hereinafter referred to as “the defendant”, for purchase of half share in the shop in dispute for a total sale

2 agreement to sell.   The balance amount was to be paid on or before   30.03.2003,   by   which   date   the   sale   deed   was   to   be executed and registered.  It was further alleged that the date for execution   and   registration   of   the   sale   deed   was   extended   by mutual consent of the parties till 09.10.2003.   The defendant denied the execution of the sale deed itself.  According to him, he had not been paid any money.  

to the conclusion that no agreement to sell had been executed between   the   parties   and   accordingly   dismissed   the   suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal. The first appellate court set aside the finding of the trial court that the agreement to sell had not been executed.  However, the first appellate court came to the conclusion that the so called agreement was, in fact, not an agreement to sell.  It further held, that assuming that the said agreement was an agreement to sell, the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.   It held that the plaintiff had failed to show what steps he   had   taken  to   perform   his   part  of   the   contract   from 17.10.2000 to 09.10.2003.  The first appellate court, on perusal 3 of the pleadings and the evidence, came to a finding of fact that it had nowhere been averred and proved that the plaintiff had ever showed his readiness or willingness to perform his part of the contract.  The appeal was consequently dismissed.  

the High Court without framing any question of law much less a substantial question of law.  The High Court, without discussing the   evidence,   held   that   in   its   view   the   finding   of   the   lower appellate   court   is   “not   only   erroneous,   but   fallacious   and perverse’’.  The only ground for coming to this decision is that the suit had been filed on 09.01.2004 whereas the extended date for execution and registration of the sale deed was 09.10.2003 and thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a legal notice on 13.10.2003. We   fail   to   understand   as   to   how   the   issuance   of   notice   on 13.10.2003 or the filing of the suit on 09.01.2004 can lead to the conclusion   that   the   plaintiff   was   always   ready   and   willing   to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement to sell till date of filing of suit.  Moreover, this is a pure finding of fact which should not have been disturbed in a second appeal that too without giving any cogent reasons.   4

performance of contract is required to plead and prove that he 1 was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract . Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act mandates that the plaintiff should   plead   and   prove   his   readiness   and   willingness   as   a condition   precedent   for   obtaining   relief   of   grant   of   specific performance.     As   far   back   as   in   1967,   this   Court   in 2 .   v.   Gomathinayagam   Pillai   and   Ors Pallaniswami   Nadar held that in a suit for specific performance the plaintiff must plead and prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract right from the date of the contract up to the date of the filing of the suit.  This law continues to hold the field and has been reiterated in the case of  J.P. Builders and Anr . v.  A. 3 Ramadas Rao and Anr.  and   P. Meenakshisundaram   v.   P. 4 .  It is the duty of the plaintiff to plead and Vijayakumar & Ors. then lead evidence  to show that the plaintiff from the date he 1 16. Personal bars to relief .- Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person - (a)............. (b)............ (c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.   2 (1967) 1 SCR 227 3 (2011) 1 SCC 429 4 Civil Appeal No.3353-3354 of 2018 decided on 28.03.2018, 2018(5) SCALE 229 5 entered into an agreement till the stage of filing of the suit always had the capacity and willingness to perform the contract.