FAQUIR CHAND AND ANR. versus SUDESH KUMARI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 21-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
F AQUIR CHAND AND ANR. 
v. 
SUDESH KUMARI 
SEPTEMBER 21. 2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963--Section 16(c)-Suit for specific performance 
of contract-Plaintiff everready and willing to perform his part of obligation 
C under the contract-Continuous readiness and willingness seen from conduct 
of the plaintiff as a whole-Suit therefore rightly decreed by Courts below. 
Kespondent filed suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. The 
question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is whether 
Respondent was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation 
D under the agreement of sale and hence the Courts below were justified in 
decreeing the suit filed by him for specific performance. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The language under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 
E 1963 does not require any specific phraseology but only that the plaintiff must 
aver that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform 
his part of the contract. Therefore, the compliance with the readiness and 
willingness has to be in spirit and substance and not in letter and form. 
(468-E-F( 
F 
1.2. The continuous readiness and willingness could very well be seen 
in the instant case from the conduct of the plaintiff as a whole. The first 
agreement was entered into between the parties on 17.6.1985 and the last 
date to execute the sale deed was 14.11.1985. The second agreement was 
executed on 9.4.1987 and the last date to execute the sale deed was 13.6.1987. 
G Again, the time was extended at the instance of the defendant up to 30.10.1987. 
Since the sale deed was not executed, the respondent was compelled to file 
the suit on 26.11.1987. Thereafter, the appellant issued a notice to the 
respondent on 7.1.1988. Also the respondent has deposited the entire sale 
consideration into the Court on 18.5.1999. He was also present in the 
H 
Registrar's office for registration of the document. However, the appellant-
466 
FAQUIR CHAND v. SUDESH KUMAR! [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
467 
d-.fendant was not present at the Registrar's Office. A careful perusal of the A 
pleadings, the evidence and the documents filed in this case would only go to 
· · show that the respondent was ever ready and willing to perform his part of 
the obligation under the agreement. The decree passed by the High Court 
confirming the decree of the lower courts does not suffer from any infirmities. 
(468-F-H; 469-A-Bl B 
1.3. To some extent, the delay is also attributable to the Respondent. 
Therefore, the appellant is to be suitably compensated. The Respondent is 
directed to pay the appellant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) 
within three months, failing which the suit filed by the respondent for specific 
performance shall stand dismissed automatically. If the amount is paid within C 
the time as stipulated, the appellant shall execute the sale deed in favour of 
the respondent without any further delay. Also on execution of the sale deed, 
the appellant shall also handover peaceful, vacant possession of the suit 
property to the respondent. (469-D-Fl 
Kanshi Ram v. Om Prakash Jawal and Ors., (1996( 4 SCC 593, referred D 
to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4223 of2006. 
From the Final Order dated 17.2.2003 of the High Court of Punjab and 
Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 408/2003. 
Amar Vivek, Jasbir Singh Malik and S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellant. 
P.N. Puri, Dhiraj and R.K. Joshi for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. Leave granted. 
The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant before us. The respondent 
herein filed a suit for specific performance or in the alternative for damages. 
E 
F 
All the three courts below, on a consideration of the entire materials placed, 
both oral and documentary, decreed the suit for specific performace. Before G 
us Mr. Amar Vivek, learned counsel for the appellants argued that in the 
absence of pleading to readiness and willingness to execute a sale deed; the 
suit for specific performance of an agreement cannot be decreed. We have 
carefully gone through the judgments rendered by the three courts below. 
The High Court on a consideration of the entire material placed before it was 
of the view that no interference was called for in the second appeal. 
H 
468 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
The learned counsel for the appell
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.