MRS. A. KANTHAMANI versus MRS. NASREEN AHMED

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 610 · Decided: 06-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(2017] 2 S.C.R. 610 
MRS. A. KANTHAMANJ 
v. 
MRS. NASREEN AHMED 
(Civil Appeal No. 2714 of 2008) 
MARCH 06, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Specific Performance: 
Suit - Seeking specific performance of agreement for sale -
Suit decreed by courts below - On appeal. plea of defendant inter 
alia that in absence of seeking declaration that agreement was. bad 
in law, mere suit for specific performance was not maintainable -
Held: The plaint which seeks the relief of ~pecific performance of 
agree111ent, 111ust contain all the requirements of s. 16(c) rlw. the 
requirements contained in Form Nos . ./7 and ./8 of Appendix 'A' of 
CPC - Plaint should also have necessary pleading satishing the 
requirement of Art. 5./ of the Limitation Act - Plea of maintainability 
of suit, being preliminary issue having been raised for the first time 
before Supreme Court, is not maintainable -
The suit was 
111aintainable as the same was filed within the time provided in Art.5./ 
of Limitation Act - The plaintiff had pleaded the necessary 
requirements of s. l 6(c) of Specific Relief Act rlw the requirements 
of Forms ./7 and ./8 ofCPC and Art. 5./ of Limitation Act - P/aimiff 
had paid more than 50% of the sale consideration lo lhe defendanl 
before 1he due date of execution of sale deed - The plaintiff was 
a/ways ready and willing lo perform her part - Trial court was 
;ustified in exercising its discrelion in favour of the plaintiff by 
·passing a decree for specific performance of agreement. - Specific 
Relief Act, 1963 - s. 16(c) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Appendix A. forms ./7 and ./8 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Art. 5./. 
Plea: 
New plea - As regards preliminary issue - Held: Plea 
regarding maintainability of suit is required to be raised in the first 
inslance - New plea in this regard not to be entertained - However, 
where the Courl prima facie finds by mere perusal of plaint 
a/legations thal the suit is barred by any express provision of law 
610 
MRS. A. KANTHAMANI v. MRS. NASREEN AHMED 
611 
or legally not maintainable due to any legal provision, it can take 
A 
judicial notice to avoid abuse of judidioial process in prosecuting 
such suit. 
Constitution of India: 
Art. 136 - Scope of - Held: Supreme Court in exercise of 
jurisdiction u!Art. 136 is loath to undertake the task of appreciating 
the evidence - More so when such appeal arises of judgment, which 
has recorded concurrent findings of fact. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1. The filing of the suit for specific performance ()f 
C 
an agreement/contract is governed by Section 16(c) of the Specific 
Relief Act, 1963 read with Article 54 of the Schedule to the 
Limitation Act, 1963. Form Nos. 47 and 48 of Appendix' A' to 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribe the format of the plaint 
for such suit. The Specific Relief Act, 1877 which stood repealed 
by the Act of 1963 did not contain provision analogues to Section 
D 
16(c). Yet iu the absence of any such provision, its requirements 
used to be considered mandatory in the suits for specific 
performance. The Act of 1963 then made the aforesaid 
. requirement a statutory one by enacting Section 16(c). Therefore, 
the plaint which seeks the relief of specific performance of the 
E 
agreement/contract must contain all requirements of Section 16(c) 
read with requirements contained in Form Nos. 47 and 48 of 
Appendix 'A' of C.P.C. [Paras 23~26) [619-A-B, G; 620-D-E) 
Ardeshir H Mama v. Flora Sasoon AIR 1928.PC 208 
- referred to. 
2. Article 54 of the Limitation Act provides a period 
·of 3 year for filing a suit for specific performance of 
contract/agreement. A period of 3 years is required to.be counted 
from the date fixed ·by the parties for the performance.; or if no 
such ·date is fixed, when the plaintiff has noticed that the 
performance is refused. The plaint should, therefore, also have 
necessary pleading satisfying the requirement of Article 54. [Para 
· 27) [620-E-F) 
3. The expression "readiness and willingness" has been 
the subject matter of interpretation in many cases even prior to 
F 
G 
H 
612 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
its insertion in Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is 
not necessary for the plaintiff .to produce the money or vouch a 
concluded scheme for financing the transaction to prove his 
readiness and willingness. [Para 28] [620-G-H; 621-A] 
Bank of India Limited & Ors. v. Jamsetji A.H Chinoy 

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