LexBAL KRISHNA AND ANR. versus BHAGWAN DAS (DEAD) AND ORS .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 389 ~~ BAL KRISHNA AND ANR. A V. • BHAGWAN DAS (DEAD) AND ORS . ' (Civil Appeal No. 4033 of 2004) MARCH 25, 2008 B [P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Specific Relief Act, 1963: s. 16(1 )(c) - In a suit for specific performance of contract of sale of house, plaintiff must allege and prove that he was c always ready and willing to perform his part of contract - On facts, plaintiff entered into agreement for sale of suit house for Rs. 25000 - Defendant paid Rs. 10, 000 - After two days they entered into re-conveyance deed - Suit for specific performance of contract of re-conveyance - Held: The plaintiffs' D case throughout in the plaint as well as in the evidence was that they were ready and willing to purchase the suit house for ·the consideration of Rs. 10, 0001- - In the absence of pleadings or proof by the plaintiffs as to their willingness and readiness to perform their part of the contract and get the sale deed E executed in their favour on payment of Rs.25,0001-, no case is made out by the plaintiffs for specific performance of the contract of re-conveyance - Specific Relief Act, 1877 - s. 24. s. 20 - Conduct of parties - It is most relevant factor for grant of refusal of equitable relief - Relief for specific F • }- performance lies in discretion of the court - No specific performance of contract, though it is not vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation, can be granted if it would give an unfair advantage to the plaintiff and where the performance of the contract would involve some hardship on the defendant, which G he did not foresee - Equity f ..., The suit property was HUF property. HUF consisted of two plaintiffs who were minors and their grandmother. 389 H 390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R. A They entered into a sale agreement on 19.7 .1952 for sale ,._ "' of suit property for Rs.25000 and gave possession except for one room. The defendant paid Rs.10,000. Two days later on 21.7.1952, parties entered into a re-conveyance deed in which it was stated that plaintiffs would be entitled B to re-buy the property on payment of original amount received from defendant with interest and defendant was to keep accounts of rent received and taxes paid. Towards the said agreement of reconveyance, the plaintiffs paid to the defendants Rs.1000 and Rs.4000. Plaintiffs then 0 approached defendant saying that he should take balance amount and given the accounts of expenses and rent received by him. Thereafter plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance of contract to reconvey the suit property. Plaintiffs averred in the plaint that they were 0 always ready and willing to perform their part of contract. Defendant died before filing written statement. His LRs. denied that sale was only for Rs.10,000. They also did not admit that any re-conveyance was entered into between the parties. They contended that plaintiffs got E signature of defendant on some papers by falsehood mis- representation. Trial Court decreed the suit holding that sale in 1952 was for Rs.25000/-; that agreement of re- conveyance of 21. 7 .1952 was for total consideration of Rs.25000 and agreement dated 21.7.1952 and not one 'F dated 19.7.1952 was enforceable; and that plaintiff had paid Rs.5000 and he was always willing to perform his part of contract. Both parties appealed against this which were dismissed. In LPA, case was remanded to Single Judge for redecision. On remand, High Court held that G on execution of agreement dated 21.7.1952, the agreement of 19.7.1952 stood substituted. It was also held that plaintiffs had not complied with mandatory requirement of s.16(c) of Specific Relief Act by not stating that they were always ready and willing to perform their H part of contract. The only step they took was paying of y BAL KRISHNA AND ANR. v. BHAGWAN DAS (DEAD) 391 AND ORS . .... ... Rs.1000 in 1953 and Rs.4000 in 1955 and thereafter no A step was taken showing callous indifference or willful negligence. T~e decree was set aside and defendant was asked to refund Rs.5000 to plaintiff with interest. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B ~ HELD: 1.1. S.16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 corresponds with s.24 of the old Act of 1877 which lays down that the person seeking specific performance of the contract, must file a suit wherein he must allege and prove c that he has performed or has been ready and w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.