JUGRAJ SINGH AND ANR. versus LABH SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 168 · Decided: 28-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
WGRAJ SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
LABH SINGH AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 28, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: 
Section J 6(c)-Readiness and willingness to perform the essential 
terms of the contract-Such a plea available to the vendor or his legal 
representatives-Not to the subsequent purchasers. 
The petitioners were defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. The first 
defendant - executed an agreement of sale dated 3~-8-1984 in favour of 
the plaintiffs. The petitioners had an agreement of sale on 4-1-1985. 
The plaintiffs filed the suit against the first defendant. All the courts 
have concurrently found that the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 were 
not bona fide purchasers for value· without notice of the prior 
agreement dated 30-8-84 and accordingly, decreed the suit. Hence this 
S.L.P. 
The petitioners contended that the trial court having found the 
petitioners to be necessary parties, was not right in negativing the plea 
of the petitioners that plaintiff 'L' was not ready and willing to 
perform his part of the contract and that the High Court committed an 
error of law in rejecting that plea. 
Dismissing the Petition, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963' provides 
that the plaintiff must plead and prove that he has always been ready 
and willing to perform his part of the essential terms of the contract. 
The contin.uous readiness and willingness at all stages from the date of 
the agreement till the date of the hearing of the suit need to be proved. 
The substance of the matter and surrounding circumstances and the 
conduct of the plaintiff must be taken into consideration in adjudging 
readiness and willingness to perform the plaintifrs part of the contract. 
That plea is specifically available to the vendor/defendant. It is 
personal to him. [ 169 HJ, [170 A & DJ 
168 
JUGRAJ SINGH v. LABH SINGH 
169 
1.2. The subsequent purchasers have got only the right to defend A 
their purchase on the premise that they have no prior knowledge of the 
agreement of sale with the plaintiff. They are bona fide purchasers for 
valuable consideration. Though they are necessary parties to the suit, 
since any decree obtained by the· plaintiff would be binding on the 
subsequent purchasers, the plea that the plaintiff must always be ready 
and willing to perform his part of the contract must be available only to B 
the vendor or his legal representatives, but not to the subsequent 
purchasers. (170 E] 
Ardeshir R. Rama v. Flora Sasson, AIR (1928) P.C. 208 and 
Gomathinavagam Pillai and Ors.•v. Palaniswami Nadar, AIR (1967) SC 
868, relied on. 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE lliRISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 
19640of1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31-5-94 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in Regular Second A. No. 2069 of 1990. 
D 
Rajinder Sachher, Ms. Rani Chhabra and Ms. Bharathi Sharma for the 
Petitioners. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
The petitioners are defendants 2 and 3. The first defendant-Jasbir Singh E 
had executed ·an agreement of sale dated 30-8-1984 in favour of the 
plaintiffs Labh Singh and his brother Surinder Singh. The petitioners had an 
agreement of sale on 4-1-1985. The plaintiffs filed the suit against Jasbir 
Singh, the first defendant. All the courts have concurrently found that the 
petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 are not bona fide purchasers for value F 
without notice of the prior agreement dated 30-8-84 and accordingly, 
decreed the suit. Thus, this S.L.P. 
It is contended for the petitioners that the trial court having found the 
petitioners to be necessary parties was not right in negativing the plea of the 
petitioners that Labh Singh - plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform G 
his part of the contract and that the High Court equally committed an error 
of law in rejecting that plea. We find no force in the contention. 
Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the 
plaintiff must plead and prove that he has always been ready and willing to 
perform his part of the essential terms of the contract. The continuous H 
170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
A 
readiness and willingness at all stages from the date of the agreement till the 
date of the hearing of the suit need to be proved. The substance of the 
matter and surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the plaintiff must 
be taken into consideration in adjudging readiness and willingness
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.