MST. SUGANI versus RAMESHWAR DAS AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 235 · Decided: 25-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
MST. SUGANI 
A 
v. 
RAMESHWAR DAS AND ANR. 
APRIL 25, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND TAR UN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Specific Relief Act, 1963; 
Section 16(c)-Specific performance of contract-Decree for-Held, 
the person seeking the relief is mandated to aver in the plaint and establish C 
by evidence that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part 
of the contract. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; 
Section JOO-Second Appeal-High Court-Power under- D 
Interference-Scope of-Explained. 
An agreement to sell was executed between the appellant herein and 
defendant No. I in the suit in respect of !he suit property for a sum of Rs. 
7,000 on 13.12.1975. Out of the said sum, Rs. 5,000 was paid as earnest money E 
on the date of agreement and the balance was payable on the date of the sale. 
Registration of the sale could not be done as admittedly there was a prohibition 
on sale of urban property at the relevant point of time. Defendant No. 1 executed 
a sale deed in favour of respondents 1 & 2 (defendant Nos. 2&3 in the suit) 
for a sum of Rs. 6,000 allegedly on the basis of and agreement to sell dated 
18.12.1973. On 3.7.1978 a notice was sent by respondent Nos. 1&2 demanding F 
arrears of rent from the appellant. On 3.1.1979 appellant filed the suit for 
specific performance of the agreement dated 13.12.1975. It was inter alia 
indicated that defendant No. 1 put off the registration of the sale deed on one 
pretext or other, on 3.7.1978 she came to know that Defendant No. 1 had 
executed a sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 1&2 and, therefore, suit G 
was filed oit 3.1.1979. Further the respondent Nos. 1&2 had full knowledge 
of agreement to sale executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of the appellant 
and in spite of that respondent Nos. 1&2 got the sale deed executed. 
It was specifically stated in the plaint that she was throughout ready 
235 
H 
236 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A and willing to get the sale deed executed. 
B 
Respondents contended that Defendant No. 1 had not entered into any 
agreement to sell the suit property on 13.12.1975. On the other hand, he had 
entered into an agreement to sell the property dated 18.12.1973 with 
respondents 1&2 which culminated in the sale deed dated 18.4.1977. 
Several issues were framed by the trail court. Both the trial court and 
the First appellant court answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiff. In 
the second appeal filed by the present respondents who were the appellants 
before the High Court, the High Court held that the pleadings in the plaint do 
C not satisfy the requirement of Section I6(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 
(in short the 'Act') read with Form Nos, 47 & 48 of Appendix A of the First 
Schedule of the CPC. The plaintiff cannot get a decree for specific performance 
of the contract as the legal heirs were not brought on record in place of 
deceased defendant No. 1. High Court had formulated questions for 
determination in respect of issues which were not even decided by trial court. 
D The trial court and the first appellate court recorded categorical findings that 
there was prohibition on the registration of the sale deed at the relevant point 
of time and, therefore, only agreement of sale was executed. Interestingly the 
High Court found that the decree passed was not executable as defendant No.1 
had died and the legal heirs were not brought on record. There was no issue 
framed in that regard and even no question of law was formulated in the second 
E appeal 
Allowing the appeal, the court 
HELD: 1.1. The basic principle behind Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief 
Act read with Explanation (ii) is that any person seeking benefit of the specific 
F performance of contract must manifest that his conduct has been blemishless 
throughout entitling him to the specific relief. The provision imposes a 
personal bar. The Court is to grant relief on the basis of the conduct of the 
person seeking relief. If the pleadings manifest that the conduct of the plaintiff 
entitles him to get the relief on perusal of the plaint he should not be denied 
G the relief. 1246-DI 
Ardeshir H. Mama v. Flora Sassoon, AIR (1928) PC 208; Prem Raj v. 
The D.L.F. Housing and Construction (Private) ltd. and Anr., A[R (1968) SC 
1355; Surya Narain Upadhyaya v. Ram Roop Pandey and Ors., AIR (1994) 
SC 105 and Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha and Ors., 12005] 7 SSC 534, 
H referred to. 
-
• 
MST. SUGANI v. RAMESHW AR DAS 
237 
Syed Dastagi

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