Karnataka HC: A Neighbour Cannot be Charged With Matrimonial Cruelty under Section 498A IPC  ||  Revisional Power U/S 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act is Supervisory; HC Cannot Revisit Facts  ||  Poverty Cannot Bar Parole; Rajasthan HC Waives Surety For Indigent Life Convict, Sets Guidelines  ||  Delhi High Court: Late Payment of TDS Does Not Absolve Criminal Liability under the Income Tax Act  ||  NCLT Kochi: Avoidance Provisions under Insolvency Code Aim to Restore, Not Punish, Parties  ||  Bombay High Court: In IBC Cases, High Courts Lack Parallel Contempt Jurisdiction over the NCLT  ||  Supreme Court: Concluded Auction Cannot Be Cancelled Merely To Invite Higher Bids at a Later Stage  ||  SC: In Customs Classification, Statutory Tariff Headings and HSN Notes Prevail over Common Parlance  ||  SC: Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Notice U/S 10(5) Must be Served on the Person in Possession  ||  Supreme Court: Only Courts May Condone Delay; Tribunals Lack Power Unless Statute Allows    

Jagjit Singh (D) thr. L.Rs. Vs. Amarjit Singh - (Supreme Court) (13 Sep 2018)

Plaintiff should plead and prove his readiness and willingness as a condition precedent for obtaining relief of grant of specific performance

MANU/SC/0982/2018

Civil

The Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract. The trial Court concluded 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, however, the first appellate court concluded 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. The appeal was consequently dismissed. The second appeal filed by the Plaintiff has been allowed by the High Court without framing any question of law much less a substantial question of law.

It is settled law that, a Plaintiff who seeks specific performance of contract is required to plead and prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 mandates that the Plaintiff should plead and prove his readiness and willingness as a condition precedent for obtaining relief of grant of specific performance. It is the duty of the Plaintiff to plead and then lead evidence to show that, the Plaintiff from the date he entered into an agreement till the stage of filing of the suit always had the capacity and willingness to perform the contract.

In present appeal, the finding of the first appellate Court that, the Plaintiff had failed to plead or prove his willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till filing of the suit is a pure finding of fact based on evidence and law. The High Court has while upsetting the judgment of the District Judge lost sight of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and the law in this regard. Hence, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the lower appellate Court is restored.

Tags : AGREEMENT   PERFORMANCE   WILLINGNESS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved