Explore the complexities of specific performance and limitation in property sale contracts as analyzed by the court. Understanding the nuances of readiness and willingness in contract fulfillment is crucial for legal outcomes. The court’s thorough examination sheds light on key aspects of property law, providing insights into the intricacies of enforcing contractual obligations. Discover more in our comprehensive blog post.
Facts
- The respondent had filed a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement for the sale of the suit land dated 05.10.1989 against the appellant.
- The Trial Court partly decreed the suit by granting refund of the earnest money with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
- The appellant failed to respond or perform his part of the contract according to the respondent.
- The respondent sought permanent injunction to prevent the appellant from transferring the suit property to any third party.
- The respondent had made various efforts to prompt the appellant to fulfill his obligations, including sending notices and publishing public notices.
- The Trial Court framed seven issues, and the respondent examined himself as PW-1 and presented documentary evidence.
- The respondent had paid Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement.
- The agreement stipulated a completion time of 6 months for the sale transaction of the suit land.
- The High Court reversed the finding of the trial court on Issue No 4 related to compliance with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
- The appellant/plaintiff was found to have made clear averments of readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the agreement.
- The High Court noted the absence of evidence from the respondent/defendant to counter the appellant’s claim of readiness and willingness.
- The Trial Court’s finding that the plaintiff had not proved his readiness and willingness was deemed as perverse and not based on sound reasoning.
- The Trial Court partially decreed the suit citing lack of payment of the balance sale consideration and failure to prove financial capacity.
- Despite the Trial Court’s decision, the High Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement.
Also Read: Assessment of Loss of Earning Capacity in Motor Accident Claim
Arguments
- Appellant argued that respondent’s suit was barred by the Law of Limitation as it was filed three years after the execution of the agreement.
- Appellant disputed the respondent’s claim of readiness and willingness to perform essential terms, citing lack of response to three notices.
- Appellant emphasized on time being an essence of the contract, stating respondent failed to perform essential terms within the stipulated time limit.
- Appellant criticized the High Court for granting specific performance relief despite respondent’s failure to meet contractual obligations.
- Appellant contended that there was no legal requirement to deposit the balance amount of sale consideration at the time of filing the suit.
- Appellant highlighted the need for the respondent to provide evidence of financial capability to make the payment, which was not fulfilled.
- The respondent had to perform their part of the contract within a reasonable time as prescribed in the agreement.
- The time limit specified in the agreement must be adhered to, even if time was not essential to the contract.
- The respondent issued public notices in local newspapers when the appellant did not respond to earlier notices.
- The appellant failed to respond to multiple notices to perform their part of the contract.
- The period of limitation for filing a suit started from the date of the appellant’s refusal to perform, not from the date of the agreement.
- The respondent provided evidence of sending registered notices and a legal notice to the appellant, which were unanswered or refused.
- A court discretion scope was cited by Mr. Lakshmaiah in reference to English decisions.
- The suit for specific performance could be filed within three years from the date fixed for performance or when performance is refused.
- The appellant’s argument of the suit being filed after three years was countered with the provisions of Article 54 of the Limitation Act.
Also Read: Enhancement of Compensation in Workmen’s Compensation Act Case
Analysis
- Limitation, delay, and laches are distinct concepts affecting specific performance suits
- Willingness and readiness are crucial elements for specific performance
- Defendant should promptly communicate refusal to sell in case of reneging
- Continuous readiness and willingness of the plaintiff is a condition for relief
- Judicial discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act must consider various aspects
- Conduct of the plaintiff, including timely actions like issuing notices, is important
- The quantum of money paid by the plaintiff may be a relevant factor
- Mere delay in filing the suit may not be sufficient grounds to deny relief
- Legal position pre-2018 amendment is considered for agreements before that date
- Difference between English and Indian systems regarding specific performance
- Written offer and payment timeline are significant when deciding on specific performance relief
- The expression ‘readiness and willingness’ in Section 16(c) of the said Act has been interpreted based on the facts of each case.
- The plea of ‘readiness and willingness to perform’ must conform to the requirements of Section 16(c) without specific wordings.
- Pleas drafted in India differ due to counsel, but the true essence should be understood by reading the whole pleading.
- Recent decisions confirm that the Specific Relief Act amendment of 2018 is prospective and does not apply to prior transactions.
- Specific performance in India falls under statutory law unlike in England where it is under equity.
- Delay alone cannot be a ground to refuse specific performance in India as there is a set period of limitation.
- The conduct of the defendant/seller is crucial in cases where they wish to back out post the agreement to sell.
- Compliance with ‘readiness and willingness’ should be in spirit and substance, not just in the exact wording.
- The court’s discretion to decree specific performance considers substantial acts or losses due to a contract.
- Specific performance may be enforced when compensation in money is inadequate for non-performance.
- A valid contract, plaintiff’s readiness and willingness, performance of contract, equity, and other factors are key for grant of specific performance.
- Semblance of substance over form is essential in evaluating a plea’s compliance with ‘readiness and willingness’.
- Specific performance of any contract may be enforced at the discretion of the court when actual damages cannot be ascertained or when monetary compensation is not adequate.
- The court presumes certain conditions unless proven otherwise, such as the inadequacy of money for relief in the breach of a contract related to immovable property.
- The court’s jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary and not mandatory, especially when monetary compensation cannot adequately remedy the breach.
- Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced for a person who fails to prove they have performed or been ready and willing to perform essential terms of the contract.
- In cases involving payment of money, the plaintiff may not need to physically tender or deposit money unless directed by the court, but must prove readiness to perform the contract as per its true terms.
- The respondent complied with Section 16(c) of the Act by making specific pleadings and providing reliable evidence of readiness and willingness.
- The High Court correctly held that the respondent fulfilled the requirements of the Act and that the appellant failed to perform as per the agreement.
- No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned judgment of the High Court granting specific performance of the agreement.
- Due to the significant increase in property prices over the decades, the Court considers it just for the respondent to pay additional amount.
- Despite attempts at mediation, settlement was unsuccessful; the appellant had possession of the land all along.
- Considering the agreement was from October 1989 and the rise in land prices, directing the respondent to pay more is in the interest of justice.
Also Read: Determining Compensation in Motor Accident Claim Cases: Legal Analysis
Decision
- Appellant must execute sale deed in favor of respondent upon deposit being made
- Appellant can withdraw the amount deposited by the respondent
- Appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned directions
- Respondent directed to deposit Rs. One Crore in Trial Court for sale consideration within eight weeks
Case Title: P.DAIVASIGAMANI Vs. S.SAMBANDAN (2022 INSC 1070)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009006-009006 / 2011
