SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD (D) BY LRS,versusSHRI BASANTI LAL

                         [2008] 5 S.C.R. 1240


A           SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD (D) BY LRS,
                                   v.
                         SHRI BASANTI LAL
                   (Civil Appeal No. 644 of 2002)
                            APRIL 7, 2008
B
        [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
                                                                          "
         Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s.16(-c) rlw Explanation (ii) - :
  Suit for specific performance of sale agreement - Specific
c statement in the plaint that the plaintiff was willing to comply
  with terms of the sale agreement and was so ready even before
  - One of the terms in the agreement related to payment of
  interest - Suit decreed by Trial Court - High Court, however,
  held that the plaintiff neither pleaded nor proved that he was
  ever-ready and willing to pay interest and that he did not
D
  establish the basic ingredients for decree of specific
  performance of contract - Challenge to - Held: Conclusion of
  High Court that tl1ere was no specific plea regarding readiness
  to pc. 1 interest is contrary to the factual scenario, in view of the
  catei·orical averment made in the plaint· - High Court was
E wron~1 in holding that that there was no indication about the
  readiness and willingness to pay interest.
        Suit filed for specific performance of contract (sale
   agreement) was decreed. First appeal filed by the
   defendant was allowed. Against the order, the parties filed
F
   cross-appeals before High Court. The High Court held
   that the plaintiff neither pleaded nor proved that he was
   ever-ready and willing to pay interest and that he did not
   establish the basic ingredients for decree of specific
   performance of contract. On that ground alone, High
Cl Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff without
   considering the other points raised by the parties. Hence                  ,..-
   the present appeal.


H
         Disposing of the appeal, the Court
                                  1240                                        -
                        ,.

      SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD (D) BY LRS, v. .SHRI           1241
                   BASANTI LAL
)

         HELD:1. The basic principle behind s.16(c) of the A
    Specific Relief Act, 1963 read with Explanation (ii) is that .
    any person seeking benefit of the specific performance
    of contract must manifest that his conduct has been
    blemishless throughout entitling him to the specific relief.
    The provision imposes a personal bar. The Court is to B
)   grant relief on the basis of the conduct of the person
    seeking relief. If the pleadings manifest that the conduct
    of the plaintiff entitles him to get the relief on perusal of
    the plaint he should not be denied the relief. S.16(c) of the
    Act mandates the plaintiff to aver rn the plaint and c
    establish as the fact by evidence aliunde that he has
    always been ready and willing to perform his part of the
    contract. [Paras 8, 9] [1245-D-G]
         Surya Narain Upadhyaya v. Ram Roop Pandey and Ors.
    AIR (1994) SC 105 and Sugani v. Rameshwar Das & Anr. D
r   (2006) 11 sec 587 - relied on.
          2.1. There is a specific statement. that the plaintiff was
    willing to comply with the terms of. the sale agreement
    which were applicable and was so ready even before. One E
    of the terms in the agreement related to payment of
    interest. Therefore the conclusion of the High Court that
    there is no specific plea regarding readiness to pay
    interest is contrary to the factual scenario, in view of the
    categorical averment made in the plaint. [Para 7] F
    [1244-G-H; 1245-A]
         2.2. The High Court's conclusions are clearly contrary
    to the materials on record. The High Court was wrong in
    holding that that there was no indication about the
    readiness and willingness to pay interest. Since the High G
    Court has not decided the other issues, the matter is
    remitted to it for considering the matter afresh in
    accordance with law. (Para 11] (1245-H; 1246-A-B]
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.          H
    1242        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008J 5 S.C.R.


A   644 of 2002.

         From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.9.2000 of
    the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in L.P.A. No.
    16/1993

B        Vinod Bobde, Praveena Gautam, Shyam Mudaliar, Nitin
    Setia and Pramod B. Agarwala for the Appellants.

           Uday U Lalit, Ajay Choudhary for the Respondent.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
           DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to
  the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench
  dismissing LPA No. 16 of 1993 filed by the appellant
  Rameshwar Prasad. 1(1 this appeal the legal representatives of
0 Rameshwar Prasad have been impleaded after his death. By
  the impugned judgment by which two LPAs. i.e. LPA Nos.16
  and 19 of 1993 were disposed of. LPA No.16 of 1993 was filed
  by Rameshwar Prasad whereas other LPA was filed by the
  present respondent Basanti Lal.. Rameshwar Prasad had
E filed a suit for the relief of specific performance of contract.
  The trial court granted the relief of specific performance of
  the contract. First appeal No.45 of 1976 was filed by Basanti
  Lal, the respondent. The appeal was allowed and the
  judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside on the
F following terms:

           a)   That the appellant shall refund the sum of Rs.3000/
                - as agreed in Ex. P/3 to the respondent by payment
                or deposit in trial court within a period of one month
                from today.
G
           b)   That the respondent on payment or deposit of this
                amount, shall put the appellant in vacant. possession
                of the property covered by Ex. P/3 within a period of
                15 days thereafter on analogy of Section 65 of the
                Contract Act.
H
      SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD (D) BY LRS, v. SHRI                1243
           BASANTI LAL [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
)
         c)     The appellant shall be liable to pay interest at the A
                rate of 1% per month on this amount in case payment
              · or deposit is made beyond the period of one month
                from the date of default till compliance.
         d)    The respondent shall be liable to pay mesne profits,
               determinable by the trial court in terms of Order 20 B
              .Rule 12 of the Code and ordered in the shape of
               final decree in that behalf in pursuance of this direction
               on failure to deliver possession within 15 days as
               directed above from the date of default till delivery of
               possession. No claim of standing crops shall be c
               admissible in view of enjoyment of usufruct for such
               a long duration and that possession shall be delivered
               along with the staAding crops, if in existence.
         e)    Parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal
                                                                       D
               as incurred. Counsel fee on each side shall, on
               certification, be Rs.1500/-.
r
          2. Both Rameshwar Prasad and Basanti Lal preferred
    appeals before the Division Bench. By the impugned judgment
    so far as the appeal filed by Rameshwar Pra.sad is concerned E
    the High Court held that the plaintiff had neither pleaded nor
    proved that he was ever ready and willing to pay interest, having
    failed to prove the purported waiver of interest, as claimed, the
    Division Bench held that the plaintiff has not established basic
    ingredients for decree of specific performance of contract. On F
    that ground alone the appeal was dismissed and other points
    raised were not considered.
         3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
    High Court categorically noted that in paragraph 13 of the plaint
    as was shown in the notice sent to the defendant, it was G
    categorically stated that he was compelled t.o comply with all
    terms and conditions of agreement. The High Court wrongly
    construed the statement and came to the conclusion that the
    said statement cannot be construed to mean that plaintiff was
    ready to pay the amount of interest, particularly in view of the H
    1244        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2008) 5 S.C.R.


A stand of the defendant. It was pointed out that in the paragraph
  13 it has been stated that the plaintiff was always ready and
  willing and even ready and willing today for performance of his
  part of the contract.
      4. It is submitted that the question of interest of delay was
B never raised before the trial court.
          5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there
    was dispute as regards the claim of payment of Rs.4,500/- and
    if there was delay interest was payable. Plaintiff raised an
c   absolutely frivolous plea that payment was being made on behalf
    of the defendant.
         6. The agreement dated 13.9.1963 contains the following
    clause which is of significance:
           "Till the payment of instalment, interest at the rate of Rs.O. 75
0
           paise percent shall be payable on Rs.5,000/- Interest shall
           be payable w.e.f. 13.9.1963."
           Following averment in the plaint needs to be quoted:
           "That the plaintiff was always ready and willing to execute
E          the sale deed and fulfill his part of the contract and is even
           so today. The plaintiff had even informed through his
           counsel Sh. U.N. Bhachawat, to the defendant in reply to
           his notice dated 7.10.1968 that he was ready and willing
           to pay balance amount of sale consideration of Rs.500
F          and to comply the terms of the sale agreement which were
           applicable on the plaintiff and the plaintiff was so ready
           even before. The defendant should execute the sale deed
           and should get Rs.500/- from the plaintiff and get the same
           registered."
G
        7. There is a specific statement that the plaintiff was willing
  to cqmply with the terms of the sale agreement which were
  applicable and was so ready even before. One of the terms in
  the agreement related to payment of interest. Therefore the
H conclusion of the High Court that there is no specific plea
   SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD (D) BY LRS, v. SHRI                    1245
        BASANTI LAL [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

 regarding readiness to pay interest is contrary to the factual          A
 scenario, in view of the categorical averment made in the plaint.
      8. The provisions of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief
 Act, 1963 (in short the 'Act') are as follows:
       "Section 16 - Personal bars to relief: Specific performance       s
       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 C
       has always been ready and willing to perform the essential
       terms of the contract which are to be performed by him,
       other than terms of the performance of which has been
       prevented or waived by the defendant."
                                                                         D
         The basic principle behind Section 16(c) read with
  Explanation (ii) is that any person seeking benefit of the specific
  performance of contract must manifest that his conduct has
  been blemishless throughout entitling him to the specific relief.
  The provision imposes a personal bar. The Court is to grant
  relief on the basis of the conduct of the person seeking relief.       E
. If the pleadings manifest that the conduct of the plaintiff entitles
  him to get the relief on perusal of the plaint he should not be
  denied the relief.
      9. Section 16(c) of the Act mandates the plaintiff to aver in      F
 the plaint and establish as the fact by evidence aliunde that he
 has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the
 contract. On considering almost identical fact situation it was
 held by this Court in Surya Narain Upadhyaya v. Ram Roop
 Pandey and Ors. (Al R 1994 SC 105) that the plaintiff had               G
 substantiated his plea.
    10. These aspects were also highlighted in Sugani v.
 Rameshwar Oas & Anr. (2006 (11) SCC 587).
       11. The High Court's conclusions are clearly contrary to          H
    1246      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  r2008] 5 S.C.R.


A the materials on record. The High Court was wrong in holding
  that that there was no indication about the readiness and
  willingness to pay interest. Since the High Court has not decided
  the other issues, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit
  the matter to it for considering the matter afresh in accordance
B with law. The impugned conclusions stand nullified by this
  judgment.
         12. As the matter is pending since long, let the High Court
    decide the matter as early as practicable preferably by the end
    of August, 2008.
c         13. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no orders     .•
    as to costs.
    B.B.B.                                    Appeal disposed of.