Supreme Court of India
P. RAVINDRANATH & ANR.versusSASIKALA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 533
- Decided
- 15 July 2024
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the decree of specific performance was not warranted because the plaintiffs failed to prove readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and therefore set aside the lower courts' orders and dismissed the suit.
Summary
The plaintiffs entered into an agreement to sell a Bangalore property in 1981, paying an advance but failing to execute the sale deed within the stipulated three‑month period, citing a government restriction on registration. The defendants sent multiple notices demanding payment of the balance and eventually forfeited the advance, thereafter selling the land to third parties. The plaintiffs sued for specific performance and a permanent injunction, but the trial court granted specific performance while the high court upheld that decree. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the plaintiffs had proved the mandatory readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and found no evidence of such readiness, nor any proof that the alleged registration ban had been lifted. Consequently, the Court held that the decree of specific performance was unwarranted, set aside the lower courts' orders, dismissed the suit, and awarded compensation to the plaintiffs for the advance and litigation costs. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- The plaintiffs' claim of being always ready and willing to execute the sale deed under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
- Whether the decree of specific performance should be upheld in view of the plaintiffs' alleged lack of readiness and willingness.
- Whether the alleged government restriction on registration was proved and its impact on the contract.
- Whether the defendants' subsequent sale deeds to third parties affect the plaintiffs' entitlement to specific performance.
- Whether the trial court and high court erred in their appreciation of evidence and law.
Legislation cited
- Contract Act, 1872s. 23
- Registration Act, 1908s. 49
- Specific Relief Act, 1963s. 16(c)
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 53(A)
Subjects
Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963Agreement to sellPropertySale deedExecution of sale deedSuit for specific performanceReady and willing to get the sale deed executed and registeredPleadings and EvidenceSpecific performance of contractDiscretionary relief
Judgment
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1347 : 2024 INSC 533
P. Ravindranath & Anr.
v.
Sasikala & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 7792 of 2024)
15 July 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Parties entered into an agreement to sell for sale of a property.
Defendant no.1 sent various notices to plaintiffs to execute the
sale deed. However, plaintiffs did not execute the sale deed.
Thereafter, defendants executed sale deeds in favour of another
persons (defendant nos. 6, 7 and CN). The plaintiffs instituted
suit for specific performance and permanent injunction. Whether
plaintiffs were always ready and willing to get the sale deed
executed and registered.
Headnotes†
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.16(c) – Parties entered into an
agreement to sell for sale of a property – The stipulated period
was fixed as three months – But, as there was a Government
order restricting registration of sale deeds – It was decided by
the parties that the sale deed would be executed immediately
after the cancellation of the said Government Order –
Thereafter, defendant no.1 sent various notices at different
intervals to the plaintiffs to come forward and get the sale deed
executed – Plaintiffs did not execute the sale deed – After above
correspondence, the defendants executed two sale deeds on
22.04.1983 and on 22.06.1983 in favour of defendant nos.6 &7
and third one in favour of CN – Plaintiffs instituted suit for
specific performance and permanent injunction – Trial Court
decreed the suit for specific performance and denied the relief
of permanent injunction – Appeal against the judgment of the
trial Court was dismissed by the High Court – Correctness:
Held: In the instant case, a perusal of the plaint reveals that the
plaintiffs failed to plead specifically with details about the restriction
said to have been imposed by the State on registration of sale
* Author
1348 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
deeds relating to similar survey numbers and revenue sites – No
details of the Government Order are mentioned – Neither the
Government Order is placed on record as evidence to connect that
such restriction was actually applicable to the land in question – It is
recorded by the Trial Court as also the High Court, that these sale
deeds (in favour of defendant nos.6 &7 and CN) were executed by
the defendants 1 to 5 after depositing some betterment charges,
getting the land converted and then effecting the transfer – The
plaintiffs do not seem to have ever approached the defendants to
get this kind of a status change and, thereafter, get the sale deeds
executed – It has not come either in pleadings or in evidence of the
plaintiffs that the alleged ban imposed by the State Government
had been lifted but still the sale deeds were executed in favour
of the appellants and other purchasers in 1983 – It is clear from
the record that the defendant no.1 had given written notices
requesting for payment of balance sale consideration and, thereafter
communicating that advance amount had been forfeited and the
agreement to sell had come to an end as the plaintiffs failed to
get the sale deed executed within three months – The plaintiffs
neither responded to the last communication of the defendant
no.1 of December, 1981, nor did they take any steps to file the
suit for specific performance of contract for more than one and a
half years after the defendant no.1 had communicated forfeiture
of the earnest money and the cancellation of the agreement to
sell – There is not even a notice by the plaintiffs before filing the
suit of showing their readiness and willingness by tendering the
amount of balance sale consideration and sending a draft sale deed
for approval and fixing a date for execution and registration of the
sale deed – This Court is unable to agree with the findings of the
courts below that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to get
the sale deed executed and registered – As a matter of fact, the
conduct of the plaintiffs throughout gives credence and strength
to the contention of the defendant nos.1 to 5 that the plaintiffs
never had the funds available with them to clear the balance sale
consideration and that they were middlemen only interested in
blocking the property and, thereafter, selling it on a higher price
to third parties and make profit thereof – Under such facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the confirmed view that the decree
of specific performance was not warranted in the present case and
ought to have been denied and the suit was liable to be dismissed.
[Paras 22(ii), 22(iii), 22(viii), 22(ix), 22(x)]
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1349
P. Ravindranath & Anr. v. Sasikala & Ors.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Pleadings and Evidence – Plaintiffs
have to establish that they have made out case for grant of
relief of specific performance of contract:
Held: Relief of specific performance of contract is a discretionary
relief – As such, the Courts while exercising power to grant
specific performance of contract, need to be extra careful and
cautious in dealing with the pleadings and the evidence in particular
led by the plaintiffs – The plaintiffs have to stand on their own legs
to establish that they have made out case for grant of relief of
specific performance of contract – The Act, 1963 provides certain
checks and balances which must be fulfilled and established by the
plaintiffs before they can become entitled for such a relief – The
pleadings in a suit for specific performance have to be very direct,
specific and accurate – A suit for specific performance based on
bald and vague pleadings must necessarily be rejected – Section
16(C) of the 1963 Act requires readiness and willingness to be
pleaded and proved by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance
of contract – The said provision has been widely interpreted and
held to be mandatory. [Para 22(i)]
Case Law Cited
Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha [2010] 12 SCR 515 : (2010)
10 SCC 512; U.N. Krishnamurthy (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs. v.
A.M. Krishnamurthy [2022] 13 SCR 250 : (2022) SCC Online
SC 840; His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji v. Sita Ram
Thapar [1996] Supp. 2 SCR 111 : (1996) 4 SCC 526 – relied on.
Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha and Others [2005] Supp. 3
SCR 440 : (2005) 7 SCC 534; Umabai and Another v. Neelkanth
Dhondiba Chavan (dead) by Lrs. and Another [2005] 3 SCR 521 :
(2005) 6 SCC 243; Rajeshwari v. Puran Indoria [2005] Supp.
2 SCR 1016 : (2005) 7 SCC 7; Malapali Munaswamy Naidu v.
P. Sumathi (2004) 13 SCC 364; Azhar Sultana v. B. Rajamani
and Others [2009] 2 SCR 537 : (2009) 17 SCC 27; Parminder
Singh v. Gurpreet Singh [2017] 6 SCR 419 : (2018) 13 SCC 352;
Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand
Jain and Another [2023] 10 SCR 1155 : (2023) SCC Online SC
877; R.K. Mohd. Ubaidullah v. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab [2000]
Supp. 1 SCR 524 : (2000) 6 SCC 402; Ram Baran Prasad v.
Ram Mohit Hazra and Others [1967] 1 SCR 293 : AIR 1967 SC
1350 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
744; Sughar Singh v. Hari Singh [2021] 10 SCR 287 : (2021) 17
SCC 705; Gaddipati Divija and Another v. Pathuri Samrajyam
and Others [2023] 3 SCR 802 : (2023) SCC Online SC 442; S.
Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram [2010] 4 SCR 515 : (2010) 5
SCC 401; R. Hemalatha v. Kashthuri [2023] 2 SCR 834 : (2023)
10 SCC 725; Suraj Lamp and Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of
Haryana [2011] 11 SCR 848 : (2012) 1 SCC 656; Manickam
alias Thandapani and Another v. Vasantha (2022) SCC Online
SC 2096 – referred to.
Himatlal Motilal and Others v. Vasudev Ganesh Mhaskar @
Ganpati Boa and Others, ILR (1912) 36 Bom. 446; Bhup Narain
Singh v. Gokhul Chand Mahton, AIR 1934 PC 68; Gadde Sitayya
(dead) and Another v. Gadde Kotayya and Others, AIR 1932 Mad.
71; Ram Kishan and Another v. Bijender Mann alias Vijender
Mann and Others (2013) 1 PLR 195 – referred to.
List of Acts
Specific Relief Act, 1963.
List of Keywords
Section 16 (c) Specific Relief Act, 1963; Agreement to sell;
Property; Sale deed; Execution of sale deed; Suit for specific
performance; Ready and willing to get the sale deed executed
and registered; Pleadings and Evidence; Specific performance of
contract; Discretionary relief.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7792 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2015 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RFA No. 362 of 2003
Appearances for Parties
Arvind Varma, Sr. Adv., Brijendra Singh, Ms. Malvika Raghwan, Rana
Pratap Singh, Gaurav Dhama, Ved Parkash, Praveen Swarup, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Ms. Sanjana Grace
Thomas, D.P. Singh, Ms. Tara Elizabeth Kurien, Advs. for the
Respondents.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1351
P. Ravindranath & Anr. v. Sasikala & Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by the defendant, assails the correctness of the judgment
and order dated 17.12.2015 of the High Court of Karnataka in RFA
No.362 of 2003, whereby the appeal of the appellant was dismissed
and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 22.10.2002
passed in O.S. No.2188 of 1983, decreeing the suit for specific
performance was confirmed.
Brief facts:
3. Smt. Sasikala and K. Satyanarayana (original vendees) entered into
an agreement to sell dated 24.05.1981 with Muni Venkata Reddy
and his four sons (original vendors) for sale of Survey No.129, New
No.220/01, Site No.14 situated at Kodihali Village, HAL, S.B. Area,
Bangalore-17 measuring East to West 132 feet and North to South
40 feet total 5280 sq. feet (hereinafter referred to as the “property in
dispute”). The total sale consideration was stated to be Rs.29,000/- ,
out of which, an advance of Rs.12,000/- was paid at the time of
agreement to sell dated 24.05.1981. The balance amount was to be
paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The necessity for sale
had arisen because of want of funds by the vendors. The stipulated
period was fixed as three months, but as there were restrictions
of registration of sale deeds with respect to similar revenue sites
and survey numbers, as such, the sale deed would be executed
immediately after the cancellation of the said Government Order.
The agreement to sell also mentioned that possession of the site
would be given that very day.
4. After expiry of three months from the date of agreement, when the
plaintiffs did not come forward to get the sale deed executed, the
defendant no.1 sent communication dated 23.09.1981 to the plaintiff
stating that he has not come forward to solve the problem as the
decision to sell was only because of his financial problems. The
defendant extended the period of three months’ time by another week
from that day and if he did not get any information from their side,
he would give the site to some other party. Thereafter, after waiting
1352 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
for two more months, legal notice was given through Advocate to the
plaintiffs on 18.11.1981 stating that, as he had failed to get the sale
deed executed within three months after payment of balance amount
of Rs.17,000/-, defendant no.1 has forfeited his earnest money; the
agreement dated 24.05.1981 has come to an end, and; as such, he
had lost all interest and right over the said property and had also lost
the earnest money because of its forfeiture. It was also stated that
he was not in a position to pay the balance amount of the sale price.
5. A reply was given by the plaintiffs through their Advocate on
02.12.1981 stating that the plaintiffs had not only given Rs.12,000/-
as advance money but had further given additional Rs.2,000/-, for
which no receipt was issued. Thus, the total advance amount was
Rs.14,000/-. It was also stated that as per the agreement, although
the period mentioned was three months, but there was a further
stipulation that as there was restriction for registering the sale
deeds pertaining to similar revenue sites, as such, it was only after
cancelling of such restrictions by the Government that the sale deed
was to be registered. As such, the agreement would be alive till the
Government lifts the ban on registering the sale deeds pertaining to
similar revenue sites. It further mentioned that as soon as registration
of documents is opened, they would get the sale deed registered. It
was also stated that forfeiture of the amount was without any right
and the agreement could not be treated as cancelled. It was also
denied that plaintiffs did not have money to pay the balance sale price.
6. In response to the above reply, defendant no.1, through his counsel,
again replied on 11.12.1981 denying the payment of additional amount
of Rs.2,000/-. It further stated that the contract had been entered
because of urgent need of money by the defendants and the price
for sale had been lowered to Rs.29,000/- because of urgency, even
though the property was then valued at more than Rs.50,000/-. The
balance amount was to be paid, in any case, within three months,
which plaintiffs had failed to do, as such, the forfeiture had been
rightly done. It was also stated that plaintiffs had been deliberately
delaying and that they were never ready from the very beginning
with the funds. Plaintiffs did not give any reply to the communication
dated 11.12.1981.
7. After above correspondence, the defendants executed two sale deeds
on 22nd April, 1983 and on 22nd June, 1983 in favour of defendant
nos.6 and 7 of part of the land agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1353
P. Ravindranath & Anr. v. Sasikala & Ors.
There is also a reference of a third sale deed in favour of one C.
Nagaraju with respect to the remaining area covered under the
agreement to sell. Thus, the total area under the agreement to sell
dated 24.05.1981 had been sold by the defendants 1 to 5 in favour
of defendant nos.6, 7 and C. Nagaraju.
8. It was after the execution of the two sale deeds mentioned above,
the plaintiffs instituted suit for specific performance and permanent
injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Bangalore on 29.07.1983
registered as O.S. No.2188 of 1983. The defendants filed written
statements and prayed for dismissal of the suit on various grounds.
Both parties led evidence. The Trial Court vide judgment dated
22.10.2002 decreed the suit for specific performance and directed the
defendants 1 to 7 to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs
after accepting the balance consideration within three months from
the date of the order. However, it denied the relief of permanent
injunction on the finding that the plaintiffs were not in possession of
the suit land. The present appellant alone preferred appeal before the
High Court, which was registered as RFA No.362 of 2003. The High
Court, by the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2015, has dismissed
the appeal giving rise to the present appeal.
9. The pleadings as reflected from reading of the plaint are as follows:
(a) Parties had entered into an agreement to sell dated 24.05.1981.
The defendants 1 to 5 were to transfer the property in dispute in
favour of the plaintiffs for total sale consideration of Rs.29,000/-,
out of which Rs.12,000/- was paid as advance and a further
amount of Rs.2000/- was paid on 22.07.1981, thus, totalling
the advance amount to Rs.14,000/-. The transaction was to
be completed within three months from the time when the
Government would remove the restriction for registration of the
sale deed of lands similar to the property in dispute and that
the expenses were to be borne by the plaintiffs.
(b) In paragraph-4, it was stated that the plaintiffs were always
ready and willing to perform their part of obligation and that
they are ready even now to perform their part, however, it was
the defendants 1 to 5 who had been dragging their feet and
had been taking time for performing the remaining part of the
agreement. They also became elusive and non-committal. The
reason for the same was that the price of the property had
1354 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
shown an upward trend and, as a result of which, defendants
were backing out. The plaintiffs also tendered the money and
the draft sale deed requesting the defendants to execute the
sale deed but they denied the execution as period of three
months had expired.
(c) A reference was also mentioned in the plaint with regard to the
notice given through an Advocate on 19.11.1981. A reference
to the restrictions on registration by the Government was also
mentioned and it was stated that the period of three months
would run from the time, the restriction was lifted.
(d) It was also mentioned that the plaintiffs sought intervention of
well-wishers to settle the matter amicably but the same did not
bear any fruit.
(e) It further mentioned that the defendants 1 to 5 have proceeded to
sell two portions of the property in dispute in favour of defendant
nos.6 and 7, who were fully aware of the earlier agreement to
sell in favour of the plaintiffs, but despite the same they got the
sale deed executed in their favour; that the defendants 1 to 5
were attempting to sell the remaining portion of the scheduled
property.
(f) Accordingly, after stating the cause of action, the valuation of
the suit and the payable court fees, relief claimed was for a
direction to the defendants to transfer the property in dispute
in favour of the plaintiffs by way of absolute sale and to get
the sale deed executed and registered in accordance with law
in terms of the agreement dated 24.05.1981. Further, relief of
granting permanent injunction was also claimed restraining the
defendants 1 to 5 from alienating or otherwise dealing with any
portion of the plaint scheduled property and from interfering in
their possession.
10. Defendants 1 to 5 filed a common written statement which briefly
raised the following issues and objections:
a) A plea was taken that the contents of the agreement to sell
disclosed only the name of defendant no.1 and not of his four
sons defendants 2 to 5. As such, the agreement was only by
defendant no.1 and not by defendants 2 to 5 and, as such, not
binding upon them.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1355
P. Ravindranath & Anr. v. Sasikala & Ors.
b) It was next stated that the advance amount paid was only
Rs.12,000/- at the time of execution of the agreement to sell.
No further amount of Rs.2,000/- was paid as alleged.
c) It was next stated that the plaintiffs were never ready and willing
to perform their part of contract at any point of time, which was
agreed to be three months, or even thereafter. The defendant
had also given repeated notices but despite the same, the
plaintiffs never came forward to clear the balance amount as
the defendants were in need of money, they were left with no
option but to execute the sale deeds.
d) It was also stated that even after the restrictions for registration
had been removed by the Government of Karnataka, the plaintiffs
did not come forward to pay the balance amount and get the
sale deed executed. This fact was clearly mentioned in their
notice dated 11.12.1981 but no reply to the same was given
by the plaintiffs.
e) It also stated that plaintiffs were middlemen and not genuine
purchasers. They never had any funds to fulfil the contract.
f) It was specifically pleaded that time was essence of the contract.
It was clearly denied that the plaintiffs ever came forward to
tender the balance amount to get the sale deed executed. It
was also denied that any Panchayat was convened to resolve
the issue.
g) Lastly, it was stated that the entire property had been sold and
given in possession of the subsequent defendants 6, 7 and C.
Nagaraju.
h) It was denied that the plaintiffs were ever put into possession.
11. Defendant no.6 also filed a written statement denying the plaint
allegations and stating that he was in possession from the date of
the sale deed in June, 1983.
12. On behalf of the plaintiffs, four (4) witnesses were examined. Plaintiff
no.1 was examined as PW-1 and three (3) other witnesses were
examined as P.W.-2 to 4, two of whom were marginal witnesses to
the agreement to sell. Nine (9) documents were filed and marked
as Exts. PW-1 to PW-9 on behalf of the plaintiffs. On behalf of the
defendants, one of the sons of defendant no.1 was examined as
1356 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
DW-1 and, further, one of the sons of defendant no.6 was examined
as DW-2. On behalf of the defendants, fourteen (14) documents
were filed and exhibited as Ext. DW-1 to DW-14.
13. The Trial Court framed as many as 12 issues which are reproduced
hereunder: -
"1. Whether defendants 2 to 5 agreed to sell the suit
property to the plaintiffs?
2. What are the amounts advanced by plaintiffs to
defendants 1 to 5?
3. Whether the plaintiffs paid a further sum of Rs.2000/-
on 22.07.1981 as further advance to defendants 1
to 5?
4. Whether the time is the essence of the contract for
sale and as the plaintiffs failed to perform their part
of the obligation within the period of three months,
the plaintiffs cannot specifically enforce the contract?
5. Whether the suit agreement is not enforceable for
all or any of the reasons stated by the defendants
1 to 5?
6. Whether the defendants nos.6 and 7 are not the bona
fide transferee for value of two portions of the plaint
schedule properties without notice to the alleged
contract for sale?
7. Whether the defendant 6 had no knowledge of the
suit agreement for sale between the plaintiffs and
defendants 1 to 5 and she is a bona fide purchaser
for value?
8. Whether the plaintiffs have lost their right even to claim
refund of the amounts paid by them to defendants
1 to 5?
9. Whether the defendants 1 to 5 have committed breach
of the terms of the agreement of sale by their stand
taken not to execute the sale deed after expiry of
three months and also by selling two portions of the
schedule property in favour of the defendants 6 and 7?
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1357
P. Ravindranath & Anr. v. Sasikala & Ors.
10. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of
specific performance in respect of the suit property?
11. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
permanent injunction?
12. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?”
14. The findings of the Trial Court on the above issues are given in
paragraph 16 of the judgment which is reproduced hereunder:
"1. In the affirmative
2. Rs.12,000/-
3. In the negative
4. In the negative
5. In the negative
6. In the affirmative
7. In the negative
8. In the negative
9. In the affirmative
10. In the affirmative
11. In the negative
12. As per the final order.”
15. As already noted above, vide judgment dated 22.10.2002, the Trial
Court decreed the suit for specific performance only and declined
the relief for permanent injunction. The High Court, after hearing the
counsel for the parties, framed six points for consideration, which
are reproduced hereunder:
"1. Whether plaintiffs have proved that agreement of
sale dated 24.05.1981 has been duly executed by
defendants 1 to 5?
2. Whether parties to the agreement dated 24.05.1981
had agreed that time is the essence of said contract?
3. Whether agreement of sale dated 24.05.1981 is hit
by any of the provisions of Contract Act, 1872?
1358 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
4. Whether defendant no.6 proves that he is a bona fide
purchaser of portion of suit schedule property without
notice of earlier agreement of sale dated 24.05.1981?
5. Whether defendant no.7 i.e. Respondent no.9 herein
is entitled for an opportunity to file written statement
and as such, matter requires to be remanded back to
the trial court by setting aside judgment and decree
under challenge?
6. Whether judgment and decree passed by the trial
court decreeing the suit O.S. No.2188/1983 for
specific performance suffers from any patent illegality
on account of either non-appreciation of available
evidence or erroneous appreciation of evidence
calling for exercise of appellate jurisdiction by setting
aside the same? And what order?”
16. On point No.1, the High Court held that agreement to sell was
executed by all the defendants i.e. 1 to 5. On point no.2, the High
Court held that time was not the essence of contract. On point no.3,
it held that the contract was not opposed to public policy nor hit by
Section 23 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872. On point no.4, it was
held that defendants 6 to 7 had failed to discharge the burden that
they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice. On point
no.5, it was held that defendant no.7 had lost the opportunity to
contest and on point no.6, the High Court held that the judgment of
the Trial Court did not suffer from any infirmity on any count and,
accordingly, proceeded to dismiss the appeal while confirming the
judgment of the Trial Court.
17. We have heard Sri Arvind Verma, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellants and Sri Sanjay Parikh, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on
record.
18. The submissions of Mr. Verma on behalf of the appellant are briefly
summarized hereunder:
a) No evidence was produced by the plaintiffs regarding the alleged
ban on registration of revenue sites/survey numbers similar to
the land in suit.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1359
P. Ravindranath & Anr. v. Sasikala & Ors.
b) Only bald and vague averments have been made to show that
the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part. No
specific details were mentioned, as such, the suit was hit by
Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 19631.
c) The appellant was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
He had exercised due diligence before purchasing the part of
the land in suit. As the agreement to sell dated 24.05.1981 was
an unregistered document, even the Sub-Registrar’s Office
could not have provided any information regarding the said
agreement to sell.
d) The High Court failed to consider the effect of the provisions
contained in Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 18822
which extended full protection to the appellant.
e) The possession of the land in dispute was never with the
plaintiffs and has throughout remained with the appellant and
other subsequent purchasers.
f) The High Court committed serious error in not relying upon the
correspondence between the defendant no.1 and the plaintiffs
relating to the request of the defendant no.1 regarding payment
of balance consideration and for getting the sale deed executed
as registered.
g) It would be highly inequitable to grant the specific performance
after 43 years in order to disturb the settled proprietary
possession of not only the appellant but also the other
subsequent purchasers.
h) The High Court ought to have denied specific performance,
however, any other relief could have been considered and
moulded in favour of the plaintiffs.
i) The plaintiffs did not seek decree for declaration of the sale
deeds in favour of the appellant as null and void or for its
cancellation. Further no relief for possession was sought as
such the suit would be barred.
19. Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon
the following judgments in support of his submissions:
1 In short, “the Act, 1963 ”
2 In short, “the Act, 1882”
1360 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(1) Aniglase Yohannan Vs. Ramlatha and others;3
(2) Umabai and another Vs. Neelkanth Dhondiba Chavan (dead)
by Lrs and another;4
(3) Rajeshwari Vs. Puran Indoria;5
(4) Malapali Munaswamy Naidu Vs. P. Sumathi;6 and
(5) Azhar Sultana Vs. B. Rajamani and others;7
20. On the other hand, Sri Sanjay Parikh, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the contesting respondents made the following
submissions, which are summarized hereunder:
a) The appeal is concluded by concurrent findings of fact recorded
by both the Courts below.
b) There is no perversity in the judgment of the High Court
warranting interference under Article 136.
c) The appellant No.2/defendant no.7 has no right to challenge
the impugned judgment as he failed to file written statement
or adduce any evidence before the Trial Court.
d) The application filed by defendant no.7/appellant no.2 under
Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC before the High Court had been
rejected. He could, thus, make submissions only on the
rejection of his application under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC and
not on merits.
e) The original vendors, defendant nos.1 to 5, did not challenge
the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
f) Defendant no.6 had died during the pendency of the proceedings
and was succeeded by six legal representatives, out of whom,
only one i.e. the appellant no.1 has challenged the judgment.
g) No benefit can be granted to the appellant or the subsequent
purchasers under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act as
3 [2005] Supp. 3 SCR 440 : (2005)7 SCC 534
4 [2005] 3 SCR 521 : (2005) 6 SCC 243
5 [2005] Supp. 2 SCR 1016 : (005) 7 SCC 7
6 (2004) 13 SCC 364
7 [2009] 2 SCR 537 : (2009) 17 SCC 27
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1361
P. Ravindranath & Anr. v. Sasikala & Ors.
they had due notice and knowledge of the agreement to sell
and, therefore, their contract of sale was not bona fide.
h) The plaintiffs have fully established and proved their readiness
and willingness both in their pleadings as also through their
evidence.
i) Time was not the essence of the agreement as it was contingent
upon the lifting of the ban imposed by the State Government
on registration.
j) The agreement to sell did not compulsorily require registration
to bring a suit for specific performance as the same is permitted
under the proviso of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.8
k) Relief of possession is inherent in a suit for specific performance
and separate relief for possession is not required to be claimed.
21. Shri Parikh, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the
following judgments in support of his submissions: -
1. Parminder Singh Vs. Gurpreet Singh;9
2. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh
Chand Jain and another;10
3. R.K. Mohd. Ubaidullah Vs. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab;11
4. Himatlal Motilal and others Vs. Vasudev Ganesh Mhaskar
@ Ganpati Boa and others;12
5. Bhup Narain Singh Vs. Gokhul Chand Mahton;13
6. Gadde Sitayya (dead) and another Vs. Gadde Kotayya and
others;14
7. Ram Baran Prasad Vs. Ram Mohit Hazra and others;15
8 In short, “the Act, 1908”
9 [2017] 6 SCR 419 : (2018) 13 SCC 352
10 [2023] 10 SCR 1155 : (2023) SCC Online SC 877
11 [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 524 : (2000) 6 SCC 402
12 ILR (1912) 36 Bom.446
13 AIR 1934 PC 68
14 AIR 1932 Mad.71
15 [1967] 1 SCR 293 : AIR 1967 SC 744
1362 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
8. Sughar Singh Vs. Hari Singh;16
9. Gaddipati Divija and another Vs. Pathuri Samrajyam and
others;17
10. S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram;18
11. R. Hemalatha Vs. Kashthuri;19
12. Suraj Lamp and Industries (P) Ltd. (2) Vs. State of Haryana;20
13. Ram Kishan and another Vs. Bijender Mann alias Vijender
Mann and others;21 and
14. Manickam alias Thandapani and another Vs. Vasantha;22
22. Having considered the submissions, our analysis is as follows:
(i) Relief of specific performance of contract is a discretionary relief.
As such, the Courts while exercising power to grant specific
performance of contract, need to be extra careful and cautious
in dealing with the pleadings and the evidence in particular led
by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have to stand on their own legs
to establish that they have made out case for grant of relief of
specific performance of contract. The Act, 1963 provides certain
checks and balances which must be fulfilled and established by
the plaintiffs before they can become entitled for such a relief.
The pleadings in a suit for specific performance have to be very
direct, specific and accurate. A suit for specific performance
based on bald and vague pleadings must necessarily be rejected.
Section 16(C) of the 1963 Act requires readiness and willingness
to be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff in a suit for specific
performance of contract. The said provision has been widely
interpreted and held to be mandatory. A few of authorities on
the point are referred hereunder:
16 [2021] 10 SCR 287 : (2021) 17 SCC 705
17 [2023] 3 SCR 802 : (2023) SCC Online SC 442
18 [2010] 4 SCR 515 : (2010) 5 SCC 401
19 [2023] 2 SCR 834 : (2023) 10 SCC 725
20 [2011] 11 SCR 848 : (2012) 1 SCC 656
21 (2013) 1 PLR 195
22 (2022) SCC Online SC 2096
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1363
P. Ravindranath & Anr. v. Sasikala & Ors.
a) In the case of Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha,23 this
Court held in paragraph 40 which is reproduced hereunder:
“40………A person 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 the terms the performance of which has
been prevented or waived by the defendant)
is barred from claiming specific performance.
Therefore, even assuming that the defendant
had committed breach, if the plaintiff fails to
aver in the plaint or prove that he was always
ready and willing to perform the essential terms
of contract which are required to be performed
by him (other than the terms the performance
of which has been prevented or waived by the
plaintiff), there is a bar to specific performance
in his favour. Therefore, the assumption of the
respondent that readiness and willingness on
the part of the plaintiff is something which need
not be proved, if the plaintiff is able to establish
that the defendant refused to execute the sale
deed and thereby committed breach, is not
correct………….”
b) In the case of U.N. Krishnamurthy (Since Deceased)
Thr. Lrs. v. A.M. Krishnamurthy,24 following was held in
paragraph 46:
“46. It is settled law that for relief of specific
performance, the Plaintiff has to prove that all
along and till the final decision of the suit, he
was ready and willing to perform the part of the
contract. It is the bounden duty of the Plaintiff to
prove his readiness and willingness by adducing
evidence. This crucial facet has to be determined
by considering all circumstances including
23 [2010] 12 SCR 515 : (2010) 10 SCC 512
24 [2022] 13 SCR 250 : (2022) SCC Online SC 840
1364 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
availability of funds and mere statement or
averment in plaint of readiness and willingness,
would not suffice.”
c) In the case of His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh
Dassji v. Sita Ram Thapar,25 it was held under paragraph 2:
“2. There is a distinction between readiness to
perform the contract and willingness to perform
the contract. By readiness may be meant the
capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract
which includes his financial position to pay the
purchase price. For determining his willingness
to perform his part of the contract, the conduct
has to be properly scrutinised. There is no
documentary proof that the plaintiff had ever
funds to pay the balance of consideration.
Assuming that he had the funds, he has to
prove his willingness to perform his part of
the contract. According to the terms of the
agreement, the plaintiff was to supply the draft
sale deed to the defendant within 7 days of the
execution of the agreement, i.e., by 27-2-1975.
The draft sale deed was not returned after being
duly approved by the petitioner. The factum of
readiness and willingness to perform plaintiff’s
part of the contract is to be adjudged with
reference to the conduct of the party and the
attending circumstances. The court may infer
from the facts and circumstances whether the
plaintiff was ready and was always ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract. The
facts of this case would amply demonstrate
that the petitioner/plaintiff was not ready nor
had the capacity to perform his part of the
contract as he had no financial capacity to pay
the consideration in cash as contracted and
intended to bide for the time which disentitles
him as time is of the essence of the contract.”
25 [1996] Supp. 2 SCR 111 : (1996) 4 SCC 526
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1365
P. Ravindranath & Anr. v. Sasikala & Ors.
(ii) In the present case, we find from a perusal of the plaint that, at
the first instance, the plaintiffs failed to plead specifically with
details about the restriction said to have been imposed by the
State on registration of sale deeds relating to similar survey
numbers and revenue sites. No details of the Government Order
are mentioned. Neither the Government Order is placed on
record as evidence to connect that such restriction was actually
applicable to the land in question.
(iii) Defendant nos.1 to 5 executed sale deeds in April and June,
1983 in favour of the appellant as also other purchasers. It is
recorded by the Trial Court as also the High Court, that these sale
deeds were executed by the defendants 1 to 5 after depositing
some betterment charges, getting the land converted and then
effecting the transfer. The plaintiffs do not seem to have ever
approached the defendants to get this kind of a status change
and, thereafter, get the sale deeds executed. It has not come
either in pleadings or in evidence of the plaintiffs that the alleged
ban imposed by the State Government had been lifted but still
the sale deeds were executed in favour of the appellants and
other purchasers in 1983.
(iv) If the plaintiffs were actually keen, ready and willing to get the
land transferred or get the agreement to sell enforced, they
should have made an effort in that regard. Neither any specific
date has been mentioned in the pleadings or in the evidence,
on which date the plaintiffs tendered the balance amount
with a request to the defendants 1 to 5 to get the land status
changed and execute the sale deed, or otherwise also, request
the defendants 1 to 5 to execute the sale deed with the same
status of the land in suit.
(v) Even before filing a suit, there is no evidence forthcoming on
behalf of the plaintiffs to show that they tendered the balance
consideration or a draft sale deed to the defendants 1 to 5
and requested for execution and registration of the sale deed.
(vi) The Courts below have proceeded to hold that there was
readiness and willingness primarily relying upon the restriction
imposed by the State. According to them, as the restriction had
not been lifted, there was no obligation on the part of the plaintiffs
to have expressed any readiness or willingness. However, the
1366 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Courts below failed to take into consideration that there was
no evidence regarding the said ban. Further the Courts below
also failed to take into consideration that a keen and a willing
buyer would have found out a way for execution of the sale
deed just as defendants 6& 7 and C. Nagaraju.
(vii) The Courts below also fell into error in recording a finding that
the defendants 1 to 5 had committed breach of contract and
had dishonestly proceeded to get the status of the land changed
and, thereafter, execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant
and other purchasers.
(viii) It is clear from the record that the defendant no.1 had given
a written notice in September, 1981, then legal notice in
November, 1981 and also another communication in December,
1981 requesting for payment of balance sale consideration
and, thereafter communicating that advance amount had been
forfeited and the agreement to sell had come to an end as the
plaintiffs failed to get the sale deed executed within three months.
After December, 1981, the plaintiffs kept silent. They neither
responded to the last communication of the defendant no.1 of
December, 1981, nor did they take any steps to file the suit for
specific performance of contract for more than one and a half
years after the defendant no.1 had communicated forfeiture of
the earnest money and the cancellation of the agreement to sell.
There is no communication from the plaintiffs after December,
1981 till July, 1983 when they filed the suit. There is not even
a notice by the plaintiffs before filing the suit of showing their
readiness and willingness by tendering the amount of balance
sale consideration and sending a draft sale deed for approval
and fixing a date for execution and registration of the sale deed.
(ix) We are thus unable to agree with the findings of the courts
below that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to get
the sale deed executed and registered. As a matter of fact,
the conduct of the plaintiffs throughout gives credence and
strength to the contention of the defendant nos.1 to 5 that the
plaintiffs never had the funds available with them to clear the
balance sale consideration and that they were middlemen only
interested in blocking the property and, thereafter, selling it
on a higher price to third parties and make profit thereof. The
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1367
P. Ravindranath & Anr. v. Sasikala & Ors.
plaintiffs were never the real purchasers interested in buying
the land in suit for themselves.
(x) Under such facts and circumstances as discussed above, we are
of the confirmed view that the decree of specific performance
was not warranted in the present case and ought to have been
denied and the suit was liable to be dismissed.
(xi) In view of the finding on the issue of readiness and willingness
being decided against the plaintiffs in the facts of the present
case, we are not inclined to enter into other arguments raised
by the learned Senior Counsel for the parties.
(xii) However, in order to adjust equities between the parties, as the
plaintiffs made a payment of Rs.12,000/- as advance money
on 24.05.1981 or before, that being an admitted position, they
need to be suitably compensated for the same. About 43 years
have passed since the date of the agreement to sell. According
to the appellant as stated in the written brief, the value of the
property is about four crores. The respondents have not given
any such figure of the approximate value of the property in
question. Considering the facts and circumstances, we direct
that the appellant compensate the plaintiffs by paying an amount
of Rs.24 lakhs in lieu of the advance and further Rs.6 lakhs as
cost of litigation. Total amount of Rs.30 lakhs to be paid within a
period of three months from today and file proof of such payment
before this Court within the next four months. In the event, such
proof is not filed, the Registry will list the matter before the Court
immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period for further orders.
23. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
The suit is dismissed, however, with the direction as contained above
regarding payment of Rs.30 lakhs by the appellants to the plaintiffs-
respondents within the time stipulated above.
24. Pending application/s, if any, is/are disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963"Sign in to search