SHRI LAKHI RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus SHRI TRIKHA RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 705 · Decided: 05-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SHRI LAKHI RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
A 
-r 
v. 
SHRI TRIKHA RAM AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 5, 1998 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
B 
-< 
Code of Civil Procedure, I 908: Order 6 Rule 17. 
Agreement to sell-Jn favour of plaintiff-Specific Performance of-Suit 
decreed by trial court-Jn appeal, defendants contended that the suit was c 
barred by S. 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act as the plaintiff did not aver in 
the plaint that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract-
Plaintiff moved an application under 0. 6 R.17 seeking introduction of the 
, 
averment regarding his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the 
contract-Appellate Court allowed the application-Held: Cause of action D 
centred round inaction on the part of the vendor in complying with the 
~ 
agreement to sell-Amendment does not change the cause for action-Hence, 
appellate court was right in allowing the application-Specific Relief Act, 
1963, S. I6(c) 
The respondent-defendant no. 1 agreed to sell his land to the appellant-
E 
plaintiff for a certain consideration. Accordingly, earnest money was taken 
by defendant no, 1 and an agreement to sell was executed in plaintiffs favour. 
Despite this agreement defendant no. 1 did not execute the sale deed instead 
sold the property to respondents-defendants nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter, the 
4 
plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 
1963. The trial court decreed the suit. 
F 
~' 
\ 
In appeal, the defendants contended that the suit was barred by Section . 
16(c) of the Act as the plaintiff did not aver in the plaint that he was ready 
and willing to perform his part of the contract. At this stage the plaintiff 
moved an application for amending the paint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the G 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking introduction of the averment regarding 
'f' 
his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The first 
appellate court allowed the application for amendment of the plaint. The 
defendants filed an appeal challenging the aforesaid decision before the High 
Court. The High Court allowed the appeal on the ground that the amendment 
would change the cause of action. Hence this appeal. 
H 
705 
706 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] I S.C.R. 
A 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that in a suit for specific 
performance of contract, the cause of action centred round inaction on the 
part of the vendor in complying with the agreement to sell the property and 
·hence the appellant could always be permitted to amend the plaint by 
introducing the averment as required by Section 16(c) of the Act. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
For S.B. Majmudar, J. 
HELD : 1. The amendment inserting the relevant averments under 
Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not change the cause of 
C action and would be a legally permissjble exercise since the cause of action 
centered round inaction on the part of the vendor in complying with the 
agreement to sell the property. Therefore, the decision rendered by the first 
appellate court allowing the amendment could not have been faulted with by 
the High Court. (710-B-CI 
D 
E 
F 
Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhaker Monhanlal Ka/war, (1990) 1 
sec 166, relied on. 
Jugraj Singh v. Labh Singh, [1996) 2 SCC 31, referred to. 
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1646 of 1981. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.79 of the Allahabad High Court 
in F.A.F. No, 295of1975. 
Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma and Rupesh Kumar for the 
Appellants. 
Prem Malthotra and Jasbir Malik for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court. was delivered by 
MAJMUDAR, J. The appellant is the original plaintiff who had filed a 
suit for specific performance of contract for sale of suit lands. The suit was 
G filed against the original vendor i.e. respondent no. 2 and also against the 
subsequent purchasers, respondent nos. I & 3 herein. We will refer to the 
appellant as the plaintiff and the respondents as defendants for the sake of 
convenience in the latter part of this judgment. The plaintiff has felt aggrieved 
by the decision of the High Court passed in miscellaneous appeal whereby 
H the High Court has set aside the order of amendment of plaint as granted by 
'·~-
·~ 
LAKHI RAM v. TRIKHA RAM [MAJMUDAR, J.] 
707 
the first appellate court and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. 
A 
., 
A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings deserve to be noted 
a

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