The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“the Apex Court”) vide its judgment dated 12.07.2022 in the matter of U.N. Krishnamurthy (Since Deceased) THR. LRS. vs A.M. Krishnamurthy after referring to several judgments passed by various courts, held that for obtaining relief under section 16(c)[1] of The Specific Relief Act, 1963 it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness, throughout the period of getting into an agreement till the date of the decree. Also, the Apex Court clarified that there should be adequate funds for the plaintiff to perform such performance. A mere statement or averment in the plaint will not suffice.

Brief Facts of the Case

That the respondent plaintiff, in this case, contended that he had approached the original defendant, to buy his inherited property for which the original defendant agreed upon. The same was witnessed by three (3) witnesses.  The respondent plaintiff also contended that the agreement for the sale of the impugned suit property was recorded by the original defendant in his own handwriting and Rs.10,001/- as the advance was paid by the respondent plaintiff against the full consideration of Rs 15,10,001/- to the original defendant. It was also contended by the respondent plaintiff that on full payment of consideration the sale deed will be registered.

Further, the respondent plaintiff contented that on several occasions he approached the original defendant for the execution of the sale of the impugned property. But the original defendant always delayed/postponed such execution. The respondent plaintiff also took a legal remedy by sending the original defendant a legal notice for executing the agreement handwritten by him wherein, the respondent plaintiff categorically mentioned that he is ready to perform his part of the balance performance. In response to the legal notice, the original defendant denied that no agreement was entered by him for the sale of the impugned suit property.

Issue

Whether continuous readiness and willingness are required for obtaining relief under Section 16(c) of The Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Order of the Apex Court

The Apex Court after considering the various judgements passed by several courts of India observed that it is settled law that the plaintiff is bound to prove his readiness and willingness along with adducing evidence to support such claim till the final decision of the suit for obtaining relief under section16(c) of The Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Apex Court was of the view that readiness or willingness is necessary, and one must look into the financials of the plaintiff to ascertain the means through which such readiness and willingness can be fulfilled. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below for your ready reference:

[1]Section 16: Personal bars to relief. – Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person:

(c) [who fails to prove] that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.

“46. It is settled law that for relief of specific performance, the Plaintiff has to prove that all along and till the final decision of the suit, he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is the bounden duty of the Plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness by adducing evidence. This crucial facet has to be determined by considering all circumstances including availability of funds and mere statement or averment in plaint of readiness and willingness, would not suffice.”

In this case, the respondent plaintiff failed to prove his part of readiness and willingness. Therefore, It was held by the Apex Court that the respondent plaintiff failed to discharge his duties mentioned above which barred the respondent plaintiff from obtaining relief under section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below for your ready reference:

“51. In view of foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Respondent Plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance. The Trial Court and the High Court erred both in law and on facts in granting such relief.”

Our Comments

We are of the view that the Apex Court passed a proficient judgment while evaluating the conduct of the plaintiff for obtaining relief under specific performance which is in absolute tandem with section 16(c) of The Specific Relief Act, 1963 if read with its explanation and left no iota of the doubt for future interpretation of the said section.