M.M.S. INVESTMENTS, MADURAI AND ORS. versus V. VEERAPPAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 32 · Decided: 11-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.M.S. INVESTMENTS, MADURAI AND ORS. 
~ 
v. 
V. VEERAPPAN AND ORS. 
APRIL 11, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: 
/ 
c 
s. 16(c)-Suit for specific performance of contract-Defence of readiness 
and willingness-Suit decreed-Thereafter suit property sold to different 
persons and appeal filed-HELD: after conveyance the only question to be 
adjudicated is whether purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value without 
notice-The question of readiness and willingness is not relevant-Therefore, 
the provision of the Act is not applicable. 
D 
Respondent no. 1 filed an suit for specific performance of agreement 
against respondents no.2 to 9. The suit was decreed . However, the defendants-
respondent sold the land which was subject matter of the suit. Defendants 1 
to S filed appeal against the judgment and decree in the suit. The Purchasers 
filed an application for impleadment as appellants 6 to 9 in the appeal. A 
E preliminary objection to defence of readiness and willingness was raised. The 
Single Judge observed that there was no bar for the appellants to raise any 
issue on merits of the appeal except the defence of readiness and willingness 
as provided under s. 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Ultimately, the 
impleadment application was allowed by the Division Bench and the appeal 
F 
was directed to be decided on merits. Aggrieved, the purchasers filed the 
present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellants that the plea relating to readiness 
and willingness can be raised in a suit for specific performance of contract; 
and that since the purchasers stepped into the suit of the vendors, plea of 
G readiness and willingness could be pressed into service. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
't 
HELD: 1.1. Questioning the plea of readiness and willingness is a 
• 
concept relatable to an agreement. After conveyance, the only question to be 
H 
32 
M.M.S.INVESTMENTS,MADURA!v. V. VEERAPPAN[PASAYAT,J.) 
33 
adjudicated is whether the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value A 
without notice, and the question of readiness and willingness is really not 
relevant. Therefore, the provision of the Specific Relief Act 1963 is not 
applicable. Once there is a conveyance, the concept would be different and the 
primary relief could be only cancellation. [Para 6) (35-B-CJ 
Ram Awadh (dead) by Lrs. and Ors. v. Achhaibar Dubey and Anr., B 
(2000) 2 sec 428, held inapplicable. 
1.2. In the instant case, the purchasers had to prove that they were bona 
fide purchasers for value without notice. The readiness and willingness aspect 
will not give any relief to them. [Para 8) (35-D-E) 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 418 of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2000 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras in L.P.A. No. 211 of 1999. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 419 of2001. 
K.K. Mani and K.B. Sandeep for the Appellants. 
V. Prabhakar, V. Subramani and Revathy Raghavan for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJITPASAYAT,J. C.A.No. 4180/2001 
I. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Madras High 
Court. Letters Patent Appeal was filed questioning correctness of the order 
passed by a learned Single Judge in A.S.No. 796/1987 dated 2.11.1999. The 
order was passed on a preliminary objection raised by the respondents in the 
appeal. 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
3. 0.S.No.247of1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai was filed 
by Veerappan, the first respondent for specific performance of an agreement 
D 
E 
F 
G 
for sale dated 23.1.1978. Respondents 2 to 9 were impleaded in the suit as 
owners of the property and it was alleged that the owners had entered into H 
an agreement with him and as the agreement was not complied with, the suit 
34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A was filed. After the decree was passed by the trial Court, the defendants 
through their power of attorney sold large extent of properties including the 
subject matter of the suit in favour of certain other persons who are the 
present appellants. In the mean time, defendants 1 to 5 filed appeal in A.S. 
No. 796 of 1987 before the High Court against the Judgment and decree in 
B O.S. No. 247of1981 and the appellants herein being subsequent purchasers 
filed C.M.P. 3707 of 1989 to implead themselves as appellants 6 to 9 in the 
appeal on the ground that original appellants 1 to 5, the erstwhile owners, 
were tryin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.