SHENBAGAM & ORS. versus KK RATHINAVEL

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 346 · Decided: 20-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 346
346
SHENBAGAM & ORS.
v.
KK RATHINAVEL
(Civil Appeal No. 150 of 2022)
JANUARY 20, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND A. S.
BOPANNA, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act: s.16 – Bars to the relief of specific
performance – Held: s.16 provides certain bars to the relief of
specific performance – These include, inter alia, a person who fails
to aver and prove that he has 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 terms the performance of which
has been prevented and waived by the defendant.
Specific performance: Conduct of the parties – Generally in
an agreement for sale of immovable property, time is not of the
essence – In deciding whether to grant the remedy of specific
performance, specifically in suits relating to sale of immovable
property, the courts must be cognizant of the conduct of the parties,
the escalation of the price of the suit property, and whether one
party will unfairly benefit from the decree – The remedy provided
must not cause injustice to a party, specifically when they are not at
fault – In this case, three decades passed since the agreement to
sell was entered into between the parties – The price of the suit
property undoubtedly have escalated – In view of the blemished
conduct of the respondent-plaintiff in indicating his willingness to
perform the contract, grant of the remedy of specific performance
of the contract is declined – However, the consideration together
with interest at 6% per annum is ordered to be refunded.
Specific performance: Willingness to perform the contract –
The foundation of a suit for specific performance lies in ascertaining
whether the plaintiff has come to the court with clean hands and
has, through his conduct, demonstrated that he has always been
willing to perform the contract – There is a conspicuous absence in
judgment of the trial court of any reference to evidence led by the
respondent to indicate his willingness to perform the contract –
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
347
Trial court merely adverted to “document produced on behalf of
the plaintiff” and concluded that he had sufficient means to purchase
the suit property – Apart from this observation, trial court did not
analyse the terms of the agreement, the obligations of the parties
and the conduct of the parties – Plaintiff withdrew the balance
consideration deposited by him before the trial court in 2001 – The
inconsistency in his conduct, lack of communication with the
defendants urging them to discharge the mortgage and in showing
his willingness to pay the balance consideration, and delay of about
three years from the date fixed for performance of the contract in
filing a suit, are all indicative of the plaintiff ’s lack of will to perform
the contract.
Specific performance: Burden to prove readiness and
willingness to perform contract – Held: The terms of the agreement
stipulated that the plaintiff was to pay the balance consideration
within a period of six months and “on receipt of the balance
consideration”, the defendants were to execute the sale deed
“pertaining to the property free from all encumbrances” – It is
evident that plaintiff was required to pay the remaining
consideration (or indicate his willingness to pay) and only then
could have sought specific performance of the contract – Plea of
plaintiff that an additional amount of Rs. 10,000 was paid to the
defendants to discharge the mortgage – However, the
acknowledgment signed by the defendants indicated that the money
was to meet urgent family expenses – Since no further details have
been provided and no evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff,
it cannot be concluded that the money was for discharge of the
mortgage – Even assuming that the plaintiff is correct, the agreement
still required the plaintiff to pay the balance consideration – The
agreement clearly provided that the balance consideration would
be paid and then the sale deed would be executed – How the
defendant chose to discharge the mortgage was for them to decide
– It is an established principle of law that the plaintiff must prove
that he is ready and willing to perform the contract – Burden lies on
the plaintiff – Plaintiff has not led any evidence that he was ready
or willing to perform his obligations under the agreement.
Specific performance: In evaluating whether the respondent
was ready and willing to perform his ob

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