1994 JTR(SC) 1196
1995 AIR(SC) 945 ; 1995 AIR(SCW) 901 ; 1995 3 ALT(SC) 42 ; 1995 1 CivCC 199 ; 1994 3 CurCC(SC) 768 ; 1996 Supp JT 642 ; 1994 5 Scale 286 ; 1995 2 SCC 31 ; 1995 1 UJ 221 ; 1995 WBLR 199 ; 1995 KHC 774
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
Jugraj Singh and another, Petitioners
Versus
Labh Singh and others, Respondents.
Spl. Leave Petn. (C) No.19640 of 1994
Decided on 28-11-1994.
Act Referred :SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT : S.16(c)
(A) Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 operates as the governing statutory provision, requiring the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract from the date of the agreement until the date of the decree. This provision directly addresses the present dispute concerning the enforceability of a contract for specific performance where subsequent purchasers are involved, mandating that the plaintiff must establish not only initial willingness but also ongoing preparedness through all stages of litigation. The principles from Ardeshir H. Mama v. Flora Sassoon and reinforced in Gomathinavagam Pillai v. Palaniswami Nadar underpin the interpretation of this section, clarifying that readiness and willingness must be pleaded and proved as a continuous state. The doctrine further distinguishes the roles of the original vendor and subsequent purchasers, limiting the plea of readiness and willingness strictly to the vendor while restricting subsequent purchasers to defending their title on the basis of bona fide acquisition without notice.
(B) The core legal principles include: (i) Section 16(c) mandates continuous readiness and willingness to perform by the plaintiff from contract formation to decree; (ii) the plea of readiness and willingness is personal to the vendor and not available to subsequent purchasers; (iii) subsequent purchasers are limited to defending on the premise of being bona fide purchasers for value without notice; (iv) all courts must assess whether the plaintiff was ready and willing at every stage; and (v) the burden of proving readiness and willingness rests solely with the plaintiff.
Facts of the case:
The first defendant, Jasbir Singh, executed an agreement of sale dated 30-8-1984 in favor of the plaintiffs Labh Singh and Surinder Singh. Subsequently, the petitioners (defendants 2 and 3) entered into an agreement of sale dated 4-1-1985. The plaintiffs filed a suit against Jasbir Singh, and all courts found that the petitioners were not bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the prior agreement. The plaintiffs sought specific performance against Jasbir Singh, and the decrees were passed against the petitioners as necessary parties.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 were not bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the prior agreement. It rejected the petitioners contention that the trial court erred in negating their plea that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, finding no force in this argument. The court confirmed that under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness, and the High Court was correct in rejecting the plea as it was personal to the vendor and not available to subsequent purchasers.
Issues:
(i) Whether the trial court was correct in negating the plea that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; (ii) whether the High Court committed an error in rejecting the petitioners contention; (iii) whether the plea of readiness and willingness is available to subsequent purchasers or is personal to the vendor.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 requires the plaintiff to continuously prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract from its date until the decree. The plea is personal to the vendor and cannot be asserted by subsequent purchasers, who are limited to defending as bona fide purchasers for value without notice. Courts must assess the plaintiffs conduct and circumstances to determine continuous readiness and willingness.
Result:
The S.L.P. is dismissed, and the petition is dismissed.
(A) Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 operates as the governing statutory provision, requiring the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract from the date of the agreement until the date of the decree. This provision directly addresses the present dispute concerning the enforceability of a contract for specific performance where subsequent purchasers are involved, mandating that the plaintiff must establish not only initial willingness but also ongoing preparedness through all stages of litigation. The principles from Ardeshir H. Mama v. Flora Sassoon and reinforced in Gomathinavagam Pillai v. Palaniswami Nadar underpin the interpretation of this section, clarifying that readiness and willingness must be pleaded and proved as a continuous state. The doctrine further distinguishes the roles of the original vendor and subsequent purchasers, limiting the plea of readiness and willingness strictly to the vendor while restricting subsequent purchasers to defending their title on the basis of bona fide acquisition without notice.
(B) The core legal principles include: (i) Section 16(c) mandates continuous readiness and willingness to perform by the plaintiff from contract formation to decree; (ii) the plea of readiness and willingness is personal to the vendor and not available to subsequent purchasers; (iii) subsequent purchasers are limited to defending on the premise of being bona fide purchasers for value without notice; (iv) all courts must assess whether the plaintiff was ready and willing at every stage; and (v) the burden of proving readiness and willingness rests solely with the plaintiff.
Facts of the case:
The first defendant, Jasbir Singh, executed an agreement of sale dated 30-8-1984 in favor of the plaintiffs Labh Singh and Surinder Singh. Subsequently, the petitioners (defendants 2 and 3) entered into an agreement of sale dated 4-1-1985. The plaintiffs filed a suit against Jasbir Singh, and all courts found that the petitioners were not bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the prior agreement. The plaintiffs sought specific performance against Jasbir Singh, and the decrees were passed against the petitioners as necessary parties.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 were not bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the prior agreement. It rejected the petitioners contention that the trial court erred in negating their plea that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, finding no force in this argument. The court confirmed that under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness, and the High Court was correct in rejecting the plea as it was personal to the vendor and not available to subsequent purchasers.
Issues:
(i) Whether the trial court was correct in negating the plea that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; (ii) whether the High Court committed an error in rejecting the petitioners contention; (iii) whether the plea of readiness and willingness is available to subsequent purchasers or is personal to the vendor.
Ratio Decidendi:
Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 requires the plaintiff to continuously prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract from its date until the decree. The plea is personal to the vendor and cannot be asserted by subsequent purchasers, who are limited to defending as bona fide purchasers for value without notice. Courts must assess the plaintiffs conduct and circumstances to determine continuous readiness and willingness.
Result:
The S.L.P. is dismissed, and the petition is dismissed.
BHARTI SHARMA, RAJINDER SACHAR, RANI CHHABRA
ORDER
The petitioners are defendants 2 and 3. The first defendant Jasbir Singh had executed an agreement of sale dt.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 without notice of the prior agreement dt. 30-8-84 and accordingly, decreed the suit. Thus, this S.L.P.
2. 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 Labha Singh plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform 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.
3. Secion 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 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.
4. The Privy Council in Ardeshir H. Mama v. Flora Sassoon, AIR 1928 PC 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.
5. This Court in Gomathinavagam Pillai v. Palaniswami Nadar, AIR 1967 SC 868, quoting with approval Ardeshirs case (AIR 1028 PC 208) (supra) had held as follows (Para 6) :
"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 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 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, therefore, was right in rejecting the petitioners contention and rightly did not accept the plea. We do not find any ground warranting interference.
6. The S.L.P. is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
For Citation: AIR 1995 SC 945