B. VIJAYA BHARATHI versus P. SAVITRI & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 7 S.C.R. 746 · Decided: 10-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 746 
8. VIJAYA BHARATHI 
v. 
P. SAVITRI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 512 of 2009) 
AUGUST 10, 2017 
[R.F. NARIMAN AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.J 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s.16(c) - Bar under - When 
applicable - Agreement to sell between appellant-plaintiff and 
C 
defendant no.1-respondent no.l (owner) - Plaint(ff paid part 
consideration in advance - Balance consideration was to be paid 
later - In terms of the agreement, Def No.l was to execute a General 
Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of plaintiff's husband - However, 
resiledfi·om execution of such GPA - Property sold by Def No. l to 
Def No.2 - Def No.2, in turn, sold the property to Def No.3 - On 
D 
18.02.1994, plaintiff issued notice to Def. No.l stating that she 
was ready to pay the balance consideration - Def No. l replied 
stating that the agreement was no longer valid - Suit for specific 
performance by plaintiff decreed - High Court in appeal by Def 
No. 3 set aside the decree of trial court stating that the plaintiff was 
E 
not ready and willing throughout as was required u/s. l 6(c) - On 
appeal, held: On 13.03.1992, Def No.l ran away from the 
Registering Authority, thus not wanting to act in furtherance of the 
agreement in executing a GPA in favour of plaintiff's husband -
Plaint!ff issued notice only on 18.02.1994, after a period of one 
year and eleven months - No prudent person would stay quiet for 
F 
such a long period after such an unequivocal repudiation of the 
agreement if they were really interested in going ahead with the 
sale transaction - Thus, plaintiff cannot be said to be ready and 
willing throughout to perform her part of the agreement - Furthe1; 
though aware of two conveyances of the same property, the plaintiff 
G did not ask for their cancellation - Bar of s. l 6(c) squarely attracted 
on the facts of the present case - High Court judgment not inteifered 
with. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 On 13.03.1992 the first defendant ran away from 
H 
the Registering Authority making it clear that she did not want 
746 
B. VIJAYA BHARATHl v. P. SAVITRl & ORS. 
747 
to act in furtherance of the Agreement in executing a General A 
Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff's husband. The High 
Court was right in stating that no prudent person would stay quiet 
for a period of one year and eleven months after such an 
unequivocal repudiation of the agreement if they were really 
interested in going ahead with the sale transaction. The only 
B 
inference, therefore, from this is that the plaintiff cannot possibly 
. be said to be ready and willing throughout to perform her part of 
the agreement. [Para 12] [751-C-D] 
· 
1.2 It must also be noted that though aware of two 
conveyances of the same property, the plaintiff did not ask for 
their cancellation. This again, would stand in the way of a decree 
C 
of specific performance for unless the sale made by Defendant 
Na. l to Defendant No.2, and thereafter by Defendant No.2 to 
Defendant No.3 are set aside, no decree for specific performance 
could possibly follow. The High Court was clearly right in finding 
that the bar of Section 16(c) was squarely attracted on the facts of D 
the present case, and that therefore, the suit must have been 
dismissed at the threshold because of lack of readiness and 
willingness, which is a basic condition for the grant of specific 
performance. [Para 17] [753-C-E] 
M.M.S. Investments, Madurai and Others v. 
V. 
Veerappan and Others (2007) 9 SCC 660: [20071 5 
SCR 32 - distinguished. 
Ram Awadh (dead) by Lrs. And Others v. Achhaibar 
Dubey and Another (2000) 2 SCC 428: [2000] 1 SCR 
566 - held applicable. 
Madamsetty Satyanarayana v. G Ye/logi Rao and two 
others [1965) 2 SCR 221; Jugraj Singh vs. Labh Singh 
(1995) 2 SCC 31: [19941 6 Suppl. SCR 168 - referred 
to. 
[19651 2 SCR 221 
[20071 5 SCR 32 
[2000] 1 SCR 566 
Case Law Reference 
referred to 
distinguished 
held applicable 
[19941 6 Suppl. SCR 168 
referred to 
Para 9 
Para 13 
Para 14 
Para 15 
E 
F 
G 
H 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVILAPPELLATEJURJSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 512 of 
B 
2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26. l 0.2005 of the High Court 
of Judicature ofAndhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in City Civil Court Appeal 
No. 204of1999. 
M. N. Rao, Sr. Adv., Ms. Promila,Adv. for the Appellant. 
K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, A. Subba Rao, Annam D. N. Rao, A. 
Venkatesh, Rahul Mishra, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the C

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