AJAIB SINGH AND ORS. versus SMT. TULSI DEVI

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 98 · Decided: 02-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
AJAIB SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
SMT. TULSI DEVI 
AUGUST 2, 2000 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Specific Reli~f Act, 1963: Section 16(c). 
Specific pe1.formance-Agreement-Obligation under-Readiness and 
willingness to pe~form-Agreement provided (i) for purchase of a part of 
property by plaillliff for a certain sum; (ii) ownership of this part to be 
tran~ferred to plaintiff on her paying full price to Government-Plaintiff 
failed to make the payment as stipulated---He/d, Plaintiff has not proved her 
readiness and willingness to perform her part of the obligation under the 
agreement-The fact that Government did not cancel the allotment would not 
have any bearing on the factwn of the plaintiff not having performed her 
obligation under the agreement-Hence, plaintiff not entitled to a decree for 
specific pe~fomwnce. 
Equity-Equitable relief-Entitlement-Plaintiff made avemients as are 
convenient to her without any regard.for the truth-Held, such a conduct would 
E 
preclude the plaintiff.from getting an equitable relief 
F 
Government allotted two plots of land, Nos. 67-A and 67-B, to one 
'S' who was a displaced person. The Government offered to 'S' a chance to 
purchase the property at a certain price to be paid either in lump sum or 
in annual instalments. The Government issued a final demand notice to 'S' 
to make the payment. 'S' did not have the money to make the payment 
and, therefore, he entered into an agreement with the respondent, which 
stipulated that (i) the respondent would purchase property No. 67-B for a 
certain price; (ii) that on the transfer of ownership to 'S' it would be 
immediately transferred in favour of the respondent upon payment of full 
G 
price to the Government; (iii) respondent was to pay a certain sum to 'S' to 
enable him to pay the first instalment; (iv) the said amount was to be 
treated as a loan and payable in 5 yearly instalments and (v) if 'S' failed to 
repay the said loan within the stipulated time property No. 67-A would 
also be transferred to the respondent. 
H 
Subsequently, 'S' entered into an agreement with the Government 
98 
AJA!B SINGH v. SMT. TULSI DEVI 
99 
which provided that the balance due was to be paid in 7 yearly instalments 
A 
and quantified the total amount due. After the death of 'S' the appellants 
survived him. 
The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement 
and claimed transfer of property No. 67-A in her name on the ground that 
'S' did not repay the loan to her. In the suit it was averred that the respond-
ent would be entitled to claim the transfer "on payment of the money due to 
the Government". In the plaint the respondent-plaintiff stated that she had 
paid all the sums due to the Government and that the last payment was 
made on 2.12.1965. 
In the written statement the appellants-defendants stated that after 
the death of 'S' the respondent-plaintiff had not made any payments; and 
that the wife of 'S' had deposited all the amounts due to the Government. 
At the trial it was established that the respondent-plaintiff did not 
make all the payments. However, the trial court decreed the suit, which was 
confirmed by the High Court. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
B 
c 
D 
HELD : I. If there is non-payment then it could not be said that the 
E 
respondent had been always ready and willing and had always performed 
her part of the Agreement. The fact that the Government did not forfeit 
would not have any bearing on the factum of the respondent not having 
performed her obligations under the Agreement. [105-E] 
2. The evidence coupled with the admitted position that the last pay-
F 
ment was made by the respondent-plaintiff on 2.12.1965 and the evidence 
of the respondent's husband clearly established that the respondent-plain-
tiff had not performed her obligation and had not made all the payments as 
was required to be done under the Agreement. [106-F; G] 
3. It is clear that the respondent-plaintiff is making averments as are 
convenient to her without any regard for the truth. This conduct would 
preclude the respondent from getting any equitable relief. However, in this 
case even otherwise it is clear that the respondent had not performed her 
part of the Agreement. Thus there never was any readiness and willingness. 
She could thus not get specific performance. [112-D; E] 
G 
H 
100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
4. The respondent-plaintiff had not performed her p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.