1999 (8) TMI 1000 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The interpretation of a plea of 'readiness and willingness to perform' in relation to Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Summary:

Background:
The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, claiming the defendant agreed to sell properties for a specified amount. The trial court decreed the suit, but the High Court set aside the decision, citing the lack of a specific averment of readiness and willingness to perform by the plaintiff.

Arguments:
The appellant contended that the plea in the pleading was sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 16(c), emphasizing that the plaintiff had fulfilled all obligations under the contract except for a nominal balance. The respondent argued that without explicit averment of readiness and willingness, relief should be denied under Section 16(c).

Court's Analysis:
The Court examined the plea in detail, emphasizing that the essence of readiness and willingness should be considered over specific phraseology. It noted that the plaintiff had paid all but a small balance, which demonstrated readiness and willingness. The Court cited precedents and the wording of Section 16(c) to support its interpretation.

Judgment:
The Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation and confirmed the decree of the lower courts in favor of the plaintiff. The appellant's suit for specific performance was allowed, and costs were imposed on the parties. The judgment highlighted the importance of substance over form in interpreting pleas and emphasized the overarching objective of justice in such cases.