N.P. THIRUGNANAM (D) BY L.RS. versus DR. R. JAGAN MOHAN RAO AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 53 · Decided: 12-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

N.P. THIRUGNANAM (D) BY L.RS. 
v. 
DR. R. JAGAN MOHAN RAO AND ORS. 
JULY 12, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
A 
B 
Order 22 Rule 6-Death of a party between conclusion of hearing and 
pronouncement of judgment-Such judgment and decree-Whether a nu/-
C 
lity-Held: The judgment has the same force and effect as if it were 
pronounced before the death took place. 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: 
Sections 16(c) and lo-Equitable remedy-Discretion of cowt-To be D 
exercised in accordance with settled principles of law-Continuous readiness 
and willingness on the part of plaintiff-A condition precedent to the grant of 
relief of specific perf onnance-Court to take into consideration the conduct 
of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of suit along with other 
attending circumstances. 
The petitioners are the legal representatives of the plaintiff who had 
entered into an agreement of sale with the respondents to alienate a certain 
property for a total consideration of Rs. 2,30,000 and paid Rs. 10,000 as 
advance. Till the date of execution of the sale-deed, he came into possession 
E 
as a tenant agreeing to pay Rs. 1650 as monthly rent. Plaintiff laid a suit F 
for specific performance claiming that the respondents had evaded execu-
tion of the sale deed. Respondent, claimed that they were ready and willing 
to perform their part of the contract, but the plaintiff did not even pay the 
further advance to discharge a mortgage debt. It was found by the Single 
Judge that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of G 
the contract. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal. Hence this Special 
Leave Petition. 
It was contended that the decree of dismissal against the dead 
plaintiff-appellant was a nullity; and that the plaintiff was always ready 
and willing to perform his part of the contract. 
H 
53 
A 
B 
c 
54 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. In the face of the explicit language in Rule 6 of Order 22 
C.P.C. there can be no abatement by reason of the death of any party 
between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncement of the 
judgment. It may be pronounced, notwithstanding the death, and shall 
have the same force and effect as if judgment had been pronounced before 
the death took place. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment and 
decree of the appellate court are nullity. [56-E-F] 
2. It is settled law that remedy for specific performance is an equi-
table remedy and is in the discretion of the court, which discretion requires 
to be exercised according to settled principles of law and not arbitrarily, 
as adumbrated under s.20 of the Specific Relief Act 1963. Under s.20, the 
court is ,not bound to grant the relief just because there was valid agree-
ment of sale. Section 16(c) of the Act envisages that plaintiff must plead 
D and prove that he had performed or has always been ready and willing to 
perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by 
him, other than those terms the performance of which has been prevented 
or waived by the defendant. The continuous readiness and willingness on 
the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of 
E 
F 
specific performance. This circumstance is material and relevant and is 
required to be considered by the court while granting or refusing to grant 
the relief. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must 
fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his 
part of the contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of 
the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit alongwith other 
attending circumstances. The amount of consideration which he has to pay 
to the defendant must of necessity be proved to be available. Right from 
the date of the execution till date of the decree he must prove that he is 
ready and has always been willing to pt.!rform his part of the contract. The 
factum of his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract 
is to be adjudged with reference to the conduct of the ·party and the 
G attending circumstances. The court may infer from the facts and cir-
cumstances whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform 
his part of contract. [57-E-H, 58-A-B] 
3. The plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase the suit house 
H for Rs. 2,30,000. He 

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