LexJANARDAN DAS & ORS. versus DURGA PRASAD AGARWALLA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 947 : 2024 INSC 778 Janardan Das & Ors. v. Durga Prasad Agarwalla & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 613 of 2017) 26 September 2024 [Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the plaintiffs proved their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract as mandated u/s.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; whether the agreement to sell was valid and enforceable against three co-owners-sisters, considering that defendant no. 1-co-owner lacked the authority to act on their behalf without a valid and subsisting General Power of Attorney; and whether the relief of specific performance, being discretionary, having been denied by the trial court was rightly granted by the High Court. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.16(c) – Specific performance of contract – Enforcement – Readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to perform the contract – Devolution of suit property among five heirs-two brothers and three sisters equally – Plaintiffs operating a petrol pump on the suit land allegedly entered into an agreement to sell with defendant No. 1 and his brother for the purchase of the suit property for consideration – Agreement stipulated that the sisters-co-owners would execute the sale deed within three months as they had not joined the agreement – Plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance of the agreement – Said agreement was executed solely by the brothers-two co-owners without any signatures, written consent, or explicit authorization from the sisters-three co-owners – Meanwhile, all the co-owners of the property transferred the suit property in favour of the appellants by virtue of a sale deed for consideration – Suit dismissed by the trial court, however, the High Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs – Correctness: Held: Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the essential terms of the agreement and to take necessary steps within the stipulated time 948 [2024] 9 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports demonstrates a lack of readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract as mandated u/s.16(c), which is fatal to their claim for specific performance – High Court erred in overlooking the plaintiffs’ inaction and lack of diligence – Further, defendant No. 1-co-owner lacked the authority to bind other three co-owners- sisters in the agreement to sell – General Power of Attorney did not confer upon him the power to sell the property on behalf of his sisters at the time of the agreement, having been impliedly revoked by the partition deed – Plaintiffs’ knowledge of the necessity of obtaining the sisters’ consent, coupled with their failure to secure such consent, renders the agreement ineffective against the sisters, and cannot be specifically enforced against them, and the plaintiffs cannot claim any right over their shares in the property based on the said agreement – Appellants are the bona fide purchasers in good faith of the suit property for valuable consideration – Once they have acquired the rights in the property way back, no justification to disturb the said sale deed by decreeing the suit for specific performance of the agreement – Thus, considering the discretionary nature of the relief and the principles governing its exercise, granting specific performance would be neither just nor equitable – Plaintiffs’ failure to fulfil essential contractual terms, coupled with the lack of authority to bind all co-owners, renders the grant of specific performance inappropriate – Equitable remedy sought by the plaintiffs cannot be granted in light of their conduct and the circumstances of the case – Given the incomplete and unenforceable nature of the agreement, it is neither just nor equitable to grant the relief sought by the plaintiffs – Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the High Court set aside and that of the trial court dismissing the suit for specific performance restored. [Paras 9-25] Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.16(c) – Specific performance of contract – Enforcement – Readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to perform the contract: Held: s.16(c) mandates that a plaintiff seeking specific performance of a contract must aver and prove that they have performed or have always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by them – This requirement is a condition preced
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.