"Specific Performance Denied: Supreme Court Upholds Plaintiff’s Failure to Prove Readiness and Willingness"
In a suit filed for #SpecificPerformanceoftheContract, #plaintiff is obliged not only to make #specificstatements and averments in the #plaint but is also obliged to #adducenecessary #oral and #documentaryevidence to show the #availabilityoffunds to make #payment in #terms of the #contract in #time. ➡️The *Case I am sharing today relates to a suit for the specific performance of a contract based on an agreement of sale entered on March 3, 2005, for a property with a total sale consideration of ₹30,00,000. → The petitioner-R Shama paid ₹12,50,000 as earnest money when executing the agreement. → The petitioner alleged readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, while the respondent-G Srinivasiah refused to execute the sale deed. → The petitioner filed a Civil suit for specific performance of the contract against the Defendant which was allowed by the Trial Court. → Against the trial court's decision, Defendant filed First Appeal before the Karnataka High Court and the High Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of the Trial Court holding that the petitioner failed to establish readiness and willingness to perform the contract. → Feeling Aggrieved the plaintiff is before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the High Court.
➡️The primary legal issue in this case was whether the petitioner demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (prior to the 2018 amendment). → Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the trial court's decree of specific performance. ➡️The petitioner contended that they were always ready and willing to perform their contractual obligations. → Claimed that the defendant's refusal to execute the sale deed was unjustified. ➡️The defendants argued that the petitioner failed to establish readiness and willingness. → Asserted that the trial court's judgment was flawed and contrary to the evidence. ➡️The Apex Court observed → Specific Performance, under Section 16(c,) cannot be granted if the plaintiff fails to aver and prove readiness and willingness. → The distinction between readiness (financial capacity) and willingness (conduct) was emphasized. →The High Court's finding that the plaintiff did not establish readiness and willingness was upheld as the finding of fact, which was not perverse or erroneous. → The plaintiff's conduct and evidence did not convincingly demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations. → The High Court's appreciation of evidence was sound and based on legal principles. ➡️The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, reiterating the critical importance of proving readiness and willingness in specific performance suits under the Specific Relief Act. *Case R Shama Naik v. G Srinivasiah Before the Supreme Court of India SLP(Civil)13933/2021 Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J B Pardiwala J & Hon'ble Mr. Justice R Mahadevan J
