MANJUNATH ANANDAPPA URF. SHIVAPPA HANASI versus TAMMANASA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 1068 · Decided: 13-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MANJUNA TH ANANDAPPA URF. SHIVAPPA HANASI 
B 
v. 
TAMMANASA AND ORS. 
MARCH 13, 2003 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section I 6(c) and Section 20: Suit for specific 
pe1formance of contract-Dismissed by Trial Court holding that the plaintiff 
C having not averred his readiness and willingness to perform his part of 
contract-Affirmed by the first appellate Court-Reversed by High Court in 
second appeal-On appeal, Held: Plainti/J neither asked the owner of suit 
property to execute a deed of sale nor tendered the balance amount in her 
favour wifhin the stipulated period-Thus, plaintiff had failed to aver and 
prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract-
D Hence specific performance of the contract cannot be enforced in his favour 
for non-compliance with the mandatory provision of the Act-Code of Civil 
Procedure-Forms 47 & 48 of Appendix A. 
Section 20-Discretionw:v Relief-Grant of-Held: Plaintiff neither made 
any effort to get executed deed of sale by the owner nor approached the Court 
E within a reasonable time for grunt of relief hence not entitled to a discretiona!J' 
relief 
Words and Phrases: "Ready and willing"-Meaning of in the context of 
Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 
F 
Defendant No.I-owner had entered into an agreement with the 
plaintiff in respect of suit property on I. I 0.1978 for consideration amount 
of Rs. 30,000 out of which Rs. 20,000 was paid as advance with the 
stipulation that on payment of balance amount, sale deed had to be 
executed within 3 years from the date of agreement. However, the owner 
G sold the suit property to another person for Rs. 50,000 on 15.5.1984; 
plaintiff served a notice upon the owner on 8.8.1984 demanding specific 
performance of the agreement of sale dated 1.10.1978 and also filed a suit 
for specific performance in the Court. Trial Court dismissed t~e suit on 
ground that plaintiff did not aver in the plaint his readiness and willingness 
to perform his part of contract and on not satisfying with his conduct 
1068 
r 
MANJUNA TH ANAND APP A URF. SHIV APPA HAN AS Iv. TAMMA NASA 
] 069 
refused to grant discretionary relief as well. The first appellate Court A 
affirmed the findings. However, High Court in the second appeal reversed 
it. Hence the present appeal filed by the aggrieved vendee. 
It was contended for the appellant that plaintiff having failed to make 
averment of mandatory provision in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific 
Relief Act, High Court erred in reversing the judgment of the Courts below B 
merely on the ground that vendor did not contest the suit; that since 
Courts below did not exercise their discretionary jurisdiction under Section 
20 of the Act, High Court should not have interfered therewith; and that 
the suit was not filed wtthin a reasonable time. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that having regard to 
statement made in the plaint as also in the deposition it was clearly stated 
that plaintiff was ready to pay the balance amount of consideration, there 
has been a substantial compliance of the provision of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The agreement was entered into on or about 1.10.1978. 
Apart from the vague statements made in the plaint, the plaintiff has not 
placed any material on record to show that at any point of time and far 
c 
D 
less within a period of 3 years from the date of the said agreement, he 
ever asked defendant No. I, owner to execute a deed of sale in his favour E 
or tendered the balance amount of.consideration to her. In terms of the 
provision under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, it is incumbent 
npon the plaintiff both to aver and prove that he had all along been ready 
and willing to perform the essential terms of contract which were required 
to be performed by him. [1074-C, D, GI 
F 
1.2. Plaintiff has not made any averment as per forms 47 and 48 of 
the Appendix A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prescribe the 
manner in which such averments are required to be made by the plaintiff. 
Apart from the fact that the date of the purported demand has not been 
disclosed, admittedly no such demand was made upon defendant No.I. G 
Though the plaintiff in his evidence admitted that defendant No. l had 
revoked the power of attorney granted in favour of defendant No. 2, in 
his deposition, he merely stated that such revocation took place after the 
agreement for sale was exec

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