JUGRAJ SINGH AND ANR.versusLABH SINGH AND ORS.

A                         WGRAJ SINGH AND ANR.
                                    v.
                           LABH SINGH AND ORS.

                             NOVEMBER 28, 1994

B             [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

        Specific ReliefAct, 1963:

        Section J6(c)-Readiness and willingness to perform the essential
    terms of the contract-Such a plea available to the vendor or his legal
c   representatives-Not to the subsequent purchasers.

        The petitioners were defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. The first
    defendant - executed an agreement of sale dated 3~-8-1984 in favour of
    the plaintiffs. The petitioners had an agreement of sale on 4-1-1985.
    The plaintiffs filed the suit against the first defendant. All the courts
D
    have concurrently found that the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 were
    not bona fide purchasers for value· without notice of the prior
    agreement dated 30-8-84 and accordingly, decreed the suit. Hence this
    S.L.P.

E        The petitioners contended that the trial court having found the
    petitioners to be necessary parties, was not right in negativing the plea
    of the petitioners that plaintiff 'L' was not ready and willing to
    perform his part of the contract and that the High Court committed an
    error of law in rejecting that plea.

F       Dismissing the Petition, this Court

         HELD : 1.1. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963' provides
    that the plaintiff must plead and prove that he has always been ready
    and willing to perform his part of the essential terms of the contract.
    The contin.uous readiness and willingness at all stages from the date of
G   the agreement till the date of the hearing of the suit need to be proved.
    The substance of the matter and surrounding circumstances and the
    conduct of the plaintiff must be taken into consideration in adjudging
    readiness and willingness to perform the plaintifrs part of the contract.
    That plea is specifically available to the vendor/defendant. It is
    personal to him. [ 169 HJ, [170 A & DJ
H
                                    168
                        JUGRAJ SINGH v. LABH SINGH                         169

    1.2. The subsequent purchasers have got only the right to defend A
their purchase on the premise that they have no prior knowledge of the
agreement of sale with the plaintiff. They are bona fide purchasers for
valuable consideration. Though they are necessary parties to the suit,
since any decree obtained by the· plaintiff would be binding on the
subsequent purchasers, the plea that the plaintiff must always be ready
and willing to perform his part of the contract must be available only to B
the vendor or his legal representatives, but not to the subsequent
purchasers. (170 E]

    Ardeshir R. Rama v. Flora Sasson, AIR (1928) P.C. 208 and
Gomathinavagam Pillai and Ors.•v. Palaniswami Nadar, AIR (1967) SC
868, relied on.                                                    C
   CIVIL APPELLATE lliRISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No.
19640of1994.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 31-5-94 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Regular Second A. No. 2069 of 1990.       D
     Rajinder Sachher, Ms. Rani Chhabra and Ms. Bharathi Sharma for the
Petitioners.

    The following Order of the Court was delivered:

     The petitioners are defendants 2 and 3. The first defendant-Jasbir Singh E
had executed ·an agreement of sale dated 30-8-1984 in favour of the
plaintiffs Labh Singh and his brother Surinder Singh. The petitioners had an
agreement of sale on 4-1-1985. The plaintiffs filed the suit against Jasbir
Singh, the first defendant. All the courts have concurrently found that the
petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 are not bona fide purchasers for value F
without notice of the prior agreement dated 30-8-84 and accordingly,
decreed the suit. Thus, this S.L.P.

     It is contended for the petitioners that the trial court having found the
petitioners to be necessary parties was not right in negativing the plea of the
petitioners that Labh Singh - plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform      G
his part of the contract and that the High Court equally committed an error
of law in rejecting that plea. We find no force in the contention.

    Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the
plaintiff must plead and prove that he has always been ready and willing to
perform his part of the essential terms of the contract. The continuous           H
    170                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R

A   readiness and willingness at all stages from the date of the agreement till the
    date of the hearing of the suit need to be proved. The substance of the
    matter and surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the plaintiff must
    be taken into consideration in adjudging readiness and willingness to
    perform the plaintiffs part of the contract.

B       The Privy Council in Ardeshir R. Rama v. Flora Sasson, AIR (1928)
    P.C. 208 has held that in a suit for specific performance the averment of
    readiness and willingness on plaintiffs part upto the date of the decree is
    necessary.

         This Court in Gomathinavagam Pillai and Ors. v. Palaniswami Nadar,
C   AIR (1967) SC 868 quoting with approval Ardeshir's case (supra) had held
    as follows:

                   "But the respondent has claimed a decree for specific
                   performance and it is for him to establish that he was, since
                   the date of the contract, continuously ready and willing to
D                  perform his part of the contract. If he fails to do so, his claim
                   for specific performance must fail."

         That plea is specifically available to the vendor/defendant. It is
    personal to him. The subsequent purchasers have got only the right to
    defend their purchase on the premise that they have no prior knowledge of
E   the agreement of sale with the plaintiff. They are bona fide purchasers for
    valuable consideration. Though they are necessary parties to the suit, since
    any decree obtained by the plaintiff would be binding on the subsequent
    purchasers, the plea that the plaintiff must always be ready and willing to
    perform his part of the contract must be available only to the vendor or his
    legal representatives, but not to the subsequent purchasers. The High Court,
F   therefore, was right in rejecting the petitioners' contention and rightly did
    not accept the plea. We do not find any ground warranting interference.

          The S.L.P. is accordingly dismissed.

    G.N                                                         Petition dismissed.