M/S P.R. DEB AND ASSOCIATES versus SUNANDA ROY

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 163 · Decided: 01-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: FAIZAN UDDIN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

J 
i 
MIS P.R. DEB AND ASSOCIATES 
v. 
SUNANDA ROY 
MARCH 1, 1996 
[FAIZAN UDDIN AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963-Section J(}-Specific Perfonnance-Suit 
fo,-P/aintiff must be ready and willing to carry out his part of the agreement 
at all material times-Otherwise suit cannot be decreed for specific perfor-
mance. 
The appellant, owner of certain immovable property, agreed to sell 
to the respondent that property for a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs. Under the terms 
A 
B 
c 
of this agreement a sum of Rs. 25,000 was to be paid at the time of 
execution of the agreement and a further sum of Rs. 4 lakhs within five 
months from the date of the agreement and the balance amount at the time D 
of conclusion of the purchase, time-being of the essence of the contract; 
that the appellant was required to hand over vacant possession of the 
property on completion of sale except for possession of four shop rooms 
in the front portion as the payment of Rs. 4 lakhs was required under the 
terms of the agreement to enahl.e the appellant to acquire a suitable E 
residence by utilising this sum. As the respondent failed and neglected to 
pay this amount within the prescribed period, the appellant called upon 
the respondent to pay the amount within seven days but despite this notice, 
the respondent failed and neglected to pay the sum of Rs. 4 lakhs. 
The respondent filed a suit for specific performance against the F 
ap;:>ellant which was dismissed by the trial court holding that the respon-
dent-plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 
In appeal, the High Court granted specific performance of the contract 
and directed the appellant to execute the deed of conveyance, on the 
respondent paying the amounts set out therein within a period of three G 
months from the date of the judgment. The respondent did not make 
payment within specified period. He made an application for extension of 
time for making payment under the decree but the High Court declined to 
grant any extension of time holding that in the facts and circumstances of 
the case it would cause hardship, serious prejudice and injury to the 
opposite party. It resulted in the respondent's suit for specific perfor- H 
163 
164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19%] 3 S.C.R. 
A mance being dismissed. Two appeals were filed, one by the appellant-defen-
dant and another by the respondent-plaintiff against the decision of the 
High Court. 
The respondent contended that under the agreement, the appellant 
was required to enter into a further agreement with the promoter of a 
B proposed housing society being formed by the respondent but the appel-
lant did not enter into any agreement with the proposed society, so the 
respondent could not raise the Sum of Rs. 4 lakhs. 
c 
Disposing of the matter, this Court 
HELD : Payment of Rs. 4 Iakhs within a reasonable time was an 
essential term of the contract becaus• late payment of this amount may 
affect the appellant's right to obtain suitable alternative residential ac-
comodation. The respondent-plaintiff was not in a position to pay the sum 
of Rs. 4 lakhs either within the time specified in the agreement of sale or 
D within a reasonable time. He has insisted on the appellant first entering 
into an agreement with a proposed housing society which never came into 
existence. There was nothing in the agreement of sale which required the 
appellant to enter into an agreement with a proposed co-operative housing 
society as a condition precedent to receiving part payment of the sum of Rs. 
E 4 lakhs. The proposed co-operative housing society was never registered 
and there was nothing to show that there were any members of his proposed 
society. The respondent plaintiff was not in a position to carry out the terms 
of agreement of sale. The plaintiff, in a suit for specific performance, must 
be ready and willing to carry out his part of the agreement at all material 
times. Such was not the case here. In fact, even after the decree of specific 
F performance the respondent was not able to deposit the amounts specified 
by the High Court within the time prescribed. As the respondent did not 
comply and was unwilling and/or unable to comply with the term of the 
agreement, he could not be considered as ready and willing to perform his 
part of the contract. [169-D-G; 170-B, D, E; 171-F) 
G 
Chand Rani (Smt.) (Dead) by Lrs. v. Kamal Rani (Smt.) (Dead) by 
Lrs., [1993) 1 SCC 519 and Parakunnan Veeti/

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.