RAVI SETIA versus MADAN LAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 938 · Decided: 04-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NAVIN SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
938
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
RAVI SETIA
v.
MADAN LAL AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No(s). 2837 of 2011)
OCTOBER 04, 2019
[NAVIN SINHA AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963: s.16(1)(c) – Suit for specific
performance of contract –  Readiness and willingness of plaintiff
to perform his part of contract – Defendants 1 to 3 agreed to sell
land in question to plaintiff – The sale deed was to be executed on
30.04.1990 – Case of plaintiff was that the defendant no.1 and 2
did not appear before the Registrar for execution on 30.04.1990 –
Trial Court and First Appellate Court arrived at the finding of
readiness and willingness on part of the plaintiff solely on basis of
a certificate produced by him from the Sub-Registrar confirming
his presence before him on 30.04.1990 for execution – Held: Apart
from the said certificate, no further evidence was led by the plaintiff
to demonstrate readiness and willingness including the continuous
capacity for discharge of the balance consideration – In the
circumstances the certificate from the office of Sub-Registrar cannot
be construed as conclusive evidence to non-suit defendants 1 and
2 – The findings to that effect therefore held to be unsustainable.
 Specific Relief Act, 1963: s.16(1)(c) – Suit for specific
performance of contract –  Readiness and willingness of plaintiff
to perform his part of contract – Trial Court decreed the suit on
01.06.1994 and granted time to the plaintiff for deposit of the
balance consideration within two months – Plaintiff offered no
explanation whatsoever for the failure to comply the direction –
After expiry of the time granted for deposit, plaintiff filed an
application before the Trial Court that in view of the pendency of
the First Appeal preferred by defendants, the time for deposit may
be extended as otherwise the amount would lie in the bank without
interest – Time for deposit was extended till disposal of the First
Appeal – Held: The failure of the plaintiff to offer any explanation
why the balance consideration was not deposited within the time
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 938
938
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
939
granted, the filing of the application for extension of time after
expiry of the prescribed period coupled with the frivolousness of
the grounds taken in the application for extension that the money
would lie in the bank without earning interest, were all but evidence
of incapacity on part of the plaintiff to perform his obligations under
the agreement and reflective of lack of readiness and willingness –
The grant of relief for specific performance under s.16(1)(c) of the
Act is a discretionary and equitable relief – The plea that the amount
would lie in the bank without interest is unfounded and contrary to
normal banking practice – This is sufficient evidence of the
incapacity or lack of readiness and willingness on part of the
plaintiff to perform his obligations – Undoubtedly, the time for
deposit could be extended under s.28 of the Act – But the mere
extension of time for deposit does not absolve the plaintiff of his
obligation to demonstrate readiness and willingness coupled with
special circumstances beyond his control to seek such extension –
The pendency of an appeal by the defendant did not preclude the
plaintiff from depositing the amount in proof of his readiness and
willingness – High Court has rightly observed that there was no
stay by the Appellate Court of the decree under appeal to justify
non-deposit during the pendency of the appeal – There was no
infirmity in the order of the High Court concluding that the plaintiff
in the facts and circumstances was not ready and willing to perform
his obligations.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 by registered notices
dated 28.05.1990 and 12.06.1990 required the plaintiff to get the
sale deed executed by 25.06.1990. The plaintiff does not dispute
that the communication was properly addressed and sent through
registered acknowledgement due. If it was returned back with
the endorsement that the plaintiff was not available at his home,
defendants 1 and 2 were not required to do anything further. If
the plaintiff was of the opinion that the endorsement was wrong,
it was for him to have contended so and led necessary evidence
in this regard. The Trial Court rightly did not disbelieve
defendants 1 and 2, but without returning any finding in that regard
preferred to rely on the unsubstantiated claim of the plaintiff of
RAVI SETIA v. MADAN LAL

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