R. SHAMA NAIK versus G. SRINIVASIAH

Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1325 · Decided: 28-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1325 : 2024 INSC 927
R. Shama Naik 
v. 
G. Srinivasiah
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13933 of 2021)
28 November 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether plaintiff failed to establish that he was always ready and 
willing to perform his part of the contract.
Headnotes†
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.16(c) – Petitioner-original plaintiff 
instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based 
on agreement to sale dated 03.03.2005 – It is the case of the 
petitioner that he was always ready and willing to perform 
his part of the contract – The trial court allowed the suit and 
passed a decree for specific performance – However, the 
High Court held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that 
he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the 
contract – Interference required or not:
Held: Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (prior to 
amendment w.e.f. 1.10.2018) bars the relief of the specific 
performance of a contract in favour of a person who fails to aver 
readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract – 
The law is well settled – The plaintiff is obliged not only to make 
specific statement and averments in the plaint but is also obliged 
to adduce necessary oral and documentary evidence to show the 
availability of funds to make payment in terms of the contract in 
time – There is a fine distinction between readiness and willingness 
to perform the contract – Both the ingredients are necessary 
for the relief of specific performance – While readiness means 
the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which would 
include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct 
of the plaintiff – The High Court in first appeal upon appreciation 
of the evidence on record both oral and documentary has arrived 
at the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he 
1326
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – 
This being a finding of fact and cannot be termed as perverse, 
there is no good reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 
[Paras 8, 10, 12, 13, 14]
List of Acts
Specific Relief Act, 1963
List of Keywords
Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963; Readiness and willingness 
to perform his part of the contract; Availability of funds; Oral and 
documentary evidence.
Case Arising From
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave 
Petition (Civil) No. 13933 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2021 of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RFA No. 1017 of 2013
Appearances for Parties
Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, Girish Ananthamurthy, Advs. for the 
Petitioner.
Manjunath Meled, Sandeep Sharma, Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Udapudi, 
Ganesh Kumar R., Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High 
Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Regular First Appeal No. 1017 
of 2013 dated 01-07-2021 by which the Regular First Appeal filed 
by the original defendant came to be allowed thereby quashing and 
setting aside the judgment and decree of specific performance passed 
by the trial court in favour of the petitioner herein-original plaintiff.
2.	
It appears that the petitioner herein original plaintiff instituted a suit 
for specific performance of contract based on agreement of sale 
dated 3rd March 2005.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1327
R. Shama Naik v. G. Srinivasiah
3.	
The total sale consideration fixed in the Agreement of sale is 
Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lakh only). Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees 
Twelve lakh fifty thousand only) came to be paid by the petitioner 
herein towards earnest money at the time of execution of the 
agreement of sale. 
4.	
It is the case of the petitioner that he was always ready and willing 
to perform his part of the contract but it is the respondent herein 
original-defendant who was not inclined to execute the sale deed 
despite accepting the amount of Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve 
lakh fifty thousand only) towards earnest money.
5.	
In such circumstances, referred to above, the petitioner herein 
instituted Original Suit No.1101 of 2008 praying for a relief of specific 
performance or in the alternative for refund of the earnest money.
6.	
The trial court allowed the suit and passed a decree for specific 
performance. The defendant went in appeal before the High Court. 
The High Court al

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