On section 16 of the specific relief act:
“Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 16 readiness and willingness Agreement to sell Purchaser is not required to produce money or to vouch a concluded scheme for financing the transaction, to prove his readiness and willingness to perform the contract”
In N.P. Thirugnanam v. R. Jagan Mohan Rao (Dr) (1995) 5 SCC 115, the Court found that the appellant was dabbling in real estate transaction without means to purchase the property and observed:
“Section 16(c) of the Act envisages that plaintiff must plead and prove that he had 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 those terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance. This circumstance is material and relevant and is required to be considered by the court while granting or refusing to grant the relief. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances. The amount of consideration which he has to pay to the defendant must of necessity be proved to be available. Right from the date of the execution till date of the decree he must prove that he is ready and has always been willing to perform his part of the contract. As stated, the factum of his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract is to be adjudged with reference to the conduct of the party and the attending circumstances. The court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was ready and was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.”
18. In J. P. Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao (supra), the Court has merely reiterated the principles already laid down and no new proposition has been laid down which may help the cause of the appellant.
Section 16(c) of the act envisages that plaintiff must plead and prove that he had 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 those terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance. This circumstance is material and relevant and is required to be considered by the court while granting or refusing to grant the relief. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances. The amount of consideration which he has to pay to the defendant must of necessity be proved to be available. Right from the date of the execution till date of the decree he must prove that he is ready and has always been willing to perform his part of the contract. As stated, the factum of his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract is to be adjudged with reference to the conduct of the party and the attending circumstances. The court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was ready and was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.”
Narinderjit Singh Appellant
Versus
North Star Estate Promoters Respondent
(DECIDED ON 8/5/2012)
“Escalation in price of land cannot, by itself, be a ground for denying relief of specific performance Appellant had neither pleaded hardship nor produced any evidence to show that it will be inequitable to order specific performance of agreement Concurrent findings recorded by trial Court and lower appellate Court on issues of execution of agreement by appellant’s father and respondent’s readiness and willingness to perform its part of agreement were based on correct evaluation of pleadings and evidence of parties”
SECTION 20
In K. Narendra v. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd. (supra), this Court interpreted Section 20 of the Act and laid down the following propositions:
“Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of appeal. Performance of the contract involving some hardship on the defendant which he did not foresee while non performance involving no such hardship on the plaintiff, is one of the circumstances in which the court may properly exercise discretion not to decree specific performance. The doctrine of comparative hardship has been thus statutorily recognized in India. However, mere inadequacy of consideration or the mere fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident in its nature, shall not constitute an unfair advantage to the plaintiff over the defendant or unforeseeable hardship on the defendant.”
SECTION 28 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT:
K. Kalpana Saraswathi
Appellant
P. S. S. Somasundaram Chettiar
Respondent
(Before : V. R. Krishna Iyer And R. S. Pathak, JJ.)
Civil Appeals Nos. 1993-1994 of 1977, Decided on : 29-11-1979
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963—Section 28—SPECIFIC performance of contrACT—Exercise of discretion—Consideration of equity—Necessity of—The court must exercise its discretion in favour of a person doing the equity.
It is perfectly open to the court in control of a suit for SPECIFIC performance to extend the time for deposit, and this court may do so even now to enable the plaintiff to get the advantage of the agreement to sell in her favour.
SPECIFIC performance is an equitable RELIEF and he who seeks equity can be put on terms to ensure that equity is done to the opposite party even while granting the RELIEF. The final end of law is justice, and so the means to it too should be informed by equity. That is why he who seeks equity shall do equity. Here, the assignment of the mortgage is not a guileless discharge of the vendor’s debt as implied in the agreement to sell but a disingenuous disguise to arm herself with a mortgage decree to swallow up the property in case the SPECIFIC performance litigation misfires. To sterilise this decree is necessary equity to which the appellant must submit herself before she can enjoy the fruits of SPECIFIC performance.
SECTION 39
Supreme Court of India (Guidelines injunction)
Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 867, 1990 SCR (1) 332
surya nath singh v khedu singh
"the grant of injunction is discretionary ,the same must be exercised on settled principles of law to advance the cause of justice."
“Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 16 readiness and willingness Agreement to sell Purchaser is not required to produce money or to vouch a concluded scheme for financing the transaction, to prove his readiness and willingness to perform the contract”
In N.P. Thirugnanam v. R. Jagan Mohan Rao (Dr) (1995) 5 SCC 115, the Court found that the appellant was dabbling in real estate transaction without means to purchase the property and observed:
“Section 16(c) of the Act envisages that plaintiff must plead and prove that he had 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 those terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance. This circumstance is material and relevant and is required to be considered by the court while granting or refusing to grant the relief. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances. The amount of consideration which he has to pay to the defendant must of necessity be proved to be available. Right from the date of the execution till date of the decree he must prove that he is ready and has always been willing to perform his part of the contract. As stated, the factum of his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract is to be adjudged with reference to the conduct of the party and the attending circumstances. The court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was ready and was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.”
18. In J. P. Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao (supra), the Court has merely reiterated the principles already laid down and no new proposition has been laid down which may help the cause of the appellant.
Section 16(c) of the act envisages that plaintiff must plead and prove that he had 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 those terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance. This circumstance is material and relevant and is required to be considered by the court while granting or refusing to grant the relief. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances. The amount of consideration which he has to pay to the defendant must of necessity be proved to be available. Right from the date of the execution till date of the decree he must prove that he is ready and has always been willing to perform his part of the contract. As stated, the factum of his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract is to be adjudged with reference to the conduct of the party and the attending circumstances. The court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was ready and was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.”
Narinderjit Singh Appellant
Versus
North Star Estate Promoters Respondent
(DECIDED ON 8/5/2012)
“Escalation in price of land cannot, by itself, be a ground for denying relief of specific performance Appellant had neither pleaded hardship nor produced any evidence to show that it will be inequitable to order specific performance of agreement Concurrent findings recorded by trial Court and lower appellate Court on issues of execution of agreement by appellant’s father and respondent’s readiness and willingness to perform its part of agreement were based on correct evaluation of pleadings and evidence of parties”
SECTION 20
In K. Narendra v. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd. (supra), this Court interpreted Section 20 of the Act and laid down the following propositions:
“Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of appeal. Performance of the contract involving some hardship on the defendant which he did not foresee while non performance involving no such hardship on the plaintiff, is one of the circumstances in which the court may properly exercise discretion not to decree specific performance. The doctrine of comparative hardship has been thus statutorily recognized in India. However, mere inadequacy of consideration or the mere fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident in its nature, shall not constitute an unfair advantage to the plaintiff over the defendant or unforeseeable hardship on the defendant.”
SECTION 28 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT:
K. Kalpana Saraswathi
Appellant
P. S. S. Somasundaram Chettiar
Respondent
(Before : V. R. Krishna Iyer And R. S. Pathak, JJ.)
Civil Appeals Nos. 1993-1994 of 1977, Decided on : 29-11-1979
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963—Section 28—SPECIFIC performance of contrACT—Exercise of discretion—Consideration of equity—Necessity of—The court must exercise its discretion in favour of a person doing the equity.
It is perfectly open to the court in control of a suit for SPECIFIC performance to extend the time for deposit, and this court may do so even now to enable the plaintiff to get the advantage of the agreement to sell in her favour.
SPECIFIC performance is an equitable RELIEF and he who seeks equity can be put on terms to ensure that equity is done to the opposite party even while granting the RELIEF. The final end of law is justice, and so the means to it too should be informed by equity. That is why he who seeks equity shall do equity. Here, the assignment of the mortgage is not a guileless discharge of the vendor’s debt as implied in the agreement to sell but a disingenuous disguise to arm herself with a mortgage decree to swallow up the property in case the SPECIFIC performance litigation misfires. To sterilise this decree is necessary equity to which the appellant must submit herself before she can enjoy the fruits of SPECIFIC performance.
SECTION 39
Supreme Court of India (Guidelines injunction)
Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors on 13 February, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 867, 1990 SCR (1) 332
surya nath singh v khedu singh
"the grant of injunction is discretionary ,the same must be exercised on settled principles of law to advance the cause of justice."