1989 (12) TMI 344 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the suit was not maintainable? Held that - The defendant denied the agreement and went on to state that just before his death her husband had agreed to sell to the plaintiff Item No. 1 of the suit property less one acre of paddy field for a sum of Rs. 11, 000 but due to the illness of her husband the sale in question could not be effected. After the written statement to this effect was filed no application for amendment to the plaint was made. The Trial Court decreed the suit. In the appeal the High Court did not accept the agreement pleaded by the plaintiff but granted a decree on the basis of the agreement set out in the written statement. It was held by a Bench comprising two learned Judges of this Court that the agreement pleaded by the defendant was wholly different from that pleaded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not plead either in the plaint or at any subsequent stage that he was ready and willing to perform the agreement pleaded in the written statement and hence no decree on the basis of that agreement should have been passed in his favour as done by the High Court. The Court held that it was well settled that in a suit for specific performance the plaintiff should allege that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and in the absence of such an allegation in the plaint the suit is not maintainable. In our opinion this case does not lend any support to the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent as in the present case there is no question of any decree being passed on the basis of any agreement other than the one pleaded by the appellant in the plaint. Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Suit maintainability for non-compliance with Specific Relief Act, 1963.
- Rejection of application for amendment of plaint.
- Principles governing granting or disallowing amendments.
- Comparison with previous case law on specific performance suits.

Analysis:

The judgment in question involves an appeal from a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit claiming specific performance of an agreement for sale of a property. The respondent-defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed as per the agreement, leading to the filing of the suit by the appellant. The respondent contended that the suit was not maintainable due to non-compliance with the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, specifically section 16(c. The issue of maintainability was directed to be tried as a preliminary issue. The appellant sought to amend the plaint to include an averment of readiness and willingness to perform, but the application for amendment was rejected by the Additional Civil Judge, a decision upheld by the High Court.

The judgment referred to the principles laid down in previous cases regarding granting or disallowing amendments to pleadings. It highlighted that amendments should be allowed if they do not work injustice to the other side and are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. The court emphasized that amendments should be refused only if the other party would suffer irreparable injury that cannot be compensated in costs. The judgment also cited specific instances where amendments may be refused, such as introducing a fresh claim barred by limitation.

In analyzing the case law on specific performance suits, the judgment distinguished a previous case where a decree was granted based on an agreement different from the one pleaded by the plaintiff. In that case, the plaintiff had not alleged readiness and willingness to perform the agreement in question, rendering the suit not maintainable. However, in the present case, the appellant sought to rectify an oversight in the pleading by amending the plaint to include the necessary averment, without introducing a fresh cause of action.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge. The court permitted the appellant to carry out the proposed amendment at their own expense within a specified timeframe. The Trial Court was directed to allow the respondent to file a supplementary written statement, if necessary, and dispose of the case on merits according to law. No costs were awarded for the appeal.