2017 (3) TMI 1848 - SC - Indian Laws

Rejection of a plea of specific performance of contract - rejection solely on the ground of delay - appellant was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract - HELD THAT - The appellant acted promptly has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, the delay per se cannot be a sole ground for refusal to grant a decree of specific performance of the contract. The High Court was not justified in dismissing the suit even though it found every issue in favour of the appellant and held that execution of the documents has been proved. Once the High Court had come to a definite conclusion that the appellant had made out her case, it should have directed specific performance of the agreement instead ordering refund of the advance amount with interest. The reasoning given by the High Court cannot be accepted or held sustainable in the eyes of law - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay as the sole ground for rejection of plea of specific performance of contract.

Analysis:
The case involved an agreement of sale between the Plaintiff and the 1st defendant for a property. The agreement required permission from the court for the sale due to the involvement of minor defendants. The 1st defendant's husband, the original owner, had passed away, and the defendants inherited the property. The plaintiff was willing to fulfill the contract, but the defendants delayed the process. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, which was initially dismissed by the Trial Court. The High Court, while finding in favor of the plaintiff on all issues, denied specific performance and ordered a refund with interest. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

The appellant argued that delay alone should not be a ground for denying specific performance, especially when the defendant breached the contract, and the plaintiff was ready to perform. The appellant claimed that the High Court erred in not considering established law and facts favoring specific performance. On the other hand, the respondents supported the lower courts' decisions, stating they correctly analyzed the evidence.

The Supreme Court reviewed the case records, including the agreement, pleadings, and judgments. They noted that the appellant promptly fulfilled her obligations and was willing to perform the contract. The Court held that delay alone cannot justify refusing specific performance. Despite the High Court finding in favor of the appellant on all aspects, it erroneously denied specific performance and ordered a refund. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's reasoning was flawed and ordered specific performance in favor of the appellant, setting aside the High Court's decision.

Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granting specific performance of the contract in favor of the appellant.