2005 (9) TMI 675 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
2. Genuineness of Ext.B1 agreement.
3. Readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform the contract.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:
The primary issue revolved around whether the plaintiff complied with the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The section mandates that the plaintiff must aver and prove that they have performed or have always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. The trial court initially held that the plaintiff did not meet these requirements, but the High Court, both at the single judge level and the Full Bench, disagreed. The High Court found that the averments in the plaint clearly indicated the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to fulfill his part of the contract. The Supreme Court cited several precedents, including *Ardeshir H. Mama v. Flora Sassoon* and *Prem Raj v. The D.L.F. Housing and Construction (Private) Ltd. and Anr.*, to emphasize that continuous readiness and willingness must be proven from the date of the contract to the time of the hearing. The Court concluded that the plaintiff's pleadings and conduct, as well as the deposit of the balance amount in court, demonstrated compliance with Section 16(c).

2. Genuineness of Ext.B1 Agreement:
The genuineness of Ext.B1, an agreement allegedly executed by the plaintiff agreeing not to enforce the specific performance of the contract, was another critical issue. The trial court initially found that the plaintiff was not the author of Ext.B1 and that Ext.A1 was not executed as security for the repayment of the amount advanced. After remand, Ext.B1 was sent for expert opinion, and the trial court concluded that the document was not genuine. The High Court upheld this finding, and the Supreme Court did not find any reason to interfere with this conclusion.

3. Readiness and Willingness of the Plaintiff to Perform the Contract:
The readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract were scrutinized based on the averments in the plaint and the conduct of the plaintiff. The trial court initially denied the relief of specific performance on the ground that the plaintiff failed to plead and prove his readiness and willingness. However, the High Court found that the essential facts in the plaint led to the inference of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness. The Supreme Court referred to several judgments, including *Syed Dastagir v. T.R. Gopalakrishna Settty* and *Motilal Jain v. Ramdasi Devi (Smt.) and Ors.*, to highlight that the compliance with "readiness and willingness" must be in spirit and substance, not merely in form. The Court observed that the plaintiff's actions, such as issuing a lawyer's notice and attempting to meet the defendant, demonstrated his readiness and willingness. The Court concluded that the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Full Bench did not suffer from any infirmity regarding this issue.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Full Bench of the High Court. The Court found that the plaintiff had complied with the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Ext.B1 agreement was not genuine, and the plaintiff had demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.