RAM AWADH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus ACHHAIBAR DUBEY AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 566 · Decided: 01-02-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAM AWADH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
v. 
ACHHAIBAR DUBEY AND ANR. 
FEBRVARY, 1, 2000 
(S.P. BHARUCHA, N. SANTOSH HEDGE AND RU~IA PAL, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963-Section l16(c}-Suitfor specific perfonnance 
of an agreement-To aver and prove that person has perfonned or willing to 
perjonn the cot1tract--Held, any defendant in a suit to contend and establish 
C that requirements of section 16(c) not complied with-Further such plea can 
be raised by the subsequent Purchaser of the property or his legal repre-
sentatives. 
'B' filed a suit for specific performance of an ngreement to sell 
D property. She did not plead in her plnint that she was ready and ll'illing 
to perform her part of the agreement but was later introduced in the 
plaint by way of an amendment. The first appellate court relying on 
Jugraj Singh's case, did not permil: the nppellant-leeal representatives of 
the subsequent purchaser of the property to plead that 'B' and her legal 
E representatives wer.i never prepared to perform their D8feemenL Hiflh 
Court affirmed the virn. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. An obligation 1!1 Imposed on the court by section 16 
F of the Special Relief Act, 1963 not 1:0 grant relief of specific performance 
of contract to '1 plllintiff who has failed to aver and to prove that he 
has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform his 
part of the agreement, the specific performance whereof he seeks. There 
Is no question of the plea being aYailable to one defendant and not to 
G another. It is open to any defendant-either subsequent purchaser of the 
property or his legal representatives-to contend and establish that the 
mandatory requirement of section l6(c) has not been complied ltith and 
it is for the court to determine whether it has or has not been complied 
with and, depending upon its condusion, decree or decline to decree 
H the suit. (569-A-C] 
566 
RAMAWADHv.ADUBEY(BHARUCHA,J.] 
567 
Jugraj Singh and Anr. v. Labh Singh & Anr., (1995) 2 SCC 31, A 
overrulzd. 
Ardeshir H. Mama v. Flora Sasson 55 IA 360; Gomathinayagam Pillai 
v. Palaniswami Nadar, (1967) 1 SCR 227; Lakhi Ram v. Trikha Ram, 
[1998) 2 sec 720, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE. JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4955 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.2.97 of the Allahabad High 
B 
Court in S.A. No. 72 of 1996. 
C 
Sudhir Chandra, Parmanand Gaur and Ms. Priya Rao and Achintya 
Dvivedi for the Appellants. 
B.D. Agarwala, Anish Dayal and Ms. Manjula Gupta for the Respon-
dents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
BHARCCHA, J. This appeal stands referred to a Bench of three 
Judges because the two learned Judges who heard it earlier found difficulty 
in following the judgment of a Bench of two learned Judges in Jugraj Singh E 
& Anr. v. Labh Singh & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 31. 
It it not necessary to go into any great detail insofar as the facts are 
concerned. The appellants before us are the legal representatives of a 
subsequent purchaser of certain property. They were defendants to a suit 
F 
by one Bachna for specific performance of an earlier agreement to sell that 
property to her. She had not pleaded in her plaint that she was ready and 
willing to perform her part of the agreement, but that plea was later 
introduced by way of an amendment. The question now is in regard to 
whether she or her legal representatives were, in fact, at all material times 
ready and willing to perform their part of that agreement. The first appel-
G 
late court declined to permit the present appellants to plead and contend 
that Bachna and her legal representatives were never prepared to perform 
their part of the agreement and, for this purpose, it relied upon . the 
judgement of this Court in the case of Jugraj Singh. The High Court, in 
second appeal, affirmed that view. 
H 
568 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
In !ugraj Singh's case, upon substantially similar facts, this Court 
noted Section 16(c) of the Spc:cial Relief Act and the dictum of the Privy 
Council in Ardeshir H Mama v. Flora Sasson (55 Ind App 360) that in a 
suit for specific performance the avcrment of readiness and willingness on 
the plaintiffs part, upto the date of the decree, was necessary. It also noted 
B that this Court in Gomathinayagam Pillai v. Palaniswami Nadar, [1967] 1 
SCR 227, had held that it was for the plaintiff in a suit specific performance 
'to establi~h that he was, since the datt: of the contra

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