SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD (D) BY LRS, versus SHRI BASANTI LAL

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 1240 · Decided: 07-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 1240 
A 
SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD (D) BY LRS, 
v. 
SHRI BASANTI LAL 
(Civil Appeal No. 644 of 2002) 
B 
APRIL 7, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
" 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s.16(-c) rlw Explanation (ii) - : 
Suit for specific performance of sale agreement - Specific 
c statement in the plaint that the plaintiff was willing to comply 
with terms of the sale agreement and was so ready even before 
- One of the terms in the agreement related to payment of 
interest - Suit decreed by Trial Court - High Court, however, 
held that the plaintiff neither pleaded nor proved that he was 
D ever-ready and willing to pay interest and that he did not 
establish the basic ingredients for decree of specific 
performance of contract - Challenge to - Held: Conclusion of 
High Court that tl1ere was no specific plea regarding readiness 
to pc. 1 interest is contrary to the factual scenario, in view of the 
E 
catei·orical averment made in the plaint· - High Court was 
wron~1 in holding that that there was no indication about the 
readiness and willingness to pay interest. 
Suit filed for specific performance of contract (sale 
agreement) was decreed. First appeal filed by the 
F defendant was allowed. Against the order, the parties filed 
cross-appeals before High Court. The High Court held 
that the plaintiff neither pleaded nor proved that he was 
ever-ready and willing to pay interest and that he did not 
establish the basic ingredients for decree of specific 
Cl 
performance of contract. On that ground alone, High 
Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff without 
considering the other points raised by the parties. Hence 
,..-
the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
-
H 
1240 
,. 
SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD (D) BY LRS, v . . SHRI 
1241 
BASANTI LAL 
) 
HELD:1. The basic principle behind s.16(c) of the A 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 read with Explanation (ii) is that . 
any person seeking benefit of the specific performance 
of contract must manifest that his conduct has been 
blemishless throughout entitling him to the specific relief. 
The provision imposes a personal bar. The Court is to B 
) 
grant relief on the basis of the conduct of the person 
seeking relief. If the pleadings manifest that the conduct 
of the plaintiff entitles him to get the relief on perusal of 
the plaint he should not be denied the relief. S.16(c) of the 
Act mandates the plaintiff to aver rn the plaint and c 
establish as the fact by evidence aliunde that he has 
always been ready and willing to perform his part of the 
contract. [Paras 8, 9] [1245-D-G] 
Surya Narain Upadhyaya v. Ram Roop Pandey and Ors. 
D 
AIR (1994) SC 105 and Sugani v. Rameshwar Das & Anr. 
r 
(2006) 11 sec 587 - relied on. 
2.1. There is a specific statement. that the plaintiff was 
willing to comply with the terms of. the sale agreement 
which were applicable and was so ready even before. One E 
of the terms in the agreement related to payment of 
interest. Therefore the conclusion of the High Court that 
there is no specific plea regarding readiness to pay 
interest is contrary to the factual scenario, in view of the 
categorical averment made in the plaint. [Para 7] F 
[1244-G-H; 1245-A] 
2.2. The High Court's conclusions are clearly contrary 
to the materials on record. The High Court was wrong in 
holding that that there was no indication about the 
readiness and willingness to pay interest. Since the High G 
Court has not decided the other issues, the matter is 
remitted to it for considering the matter afresh in 
accordance with law. (Para 11] (1245-H; 1246-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
H 
1242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008J 5 S.C.R. 
A 644 of 2002. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.9.2000 of 
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in L.P.A. No. 
16/1993 
B 
Vinod Bobde, Praveena Gautam, Shyam Mudaliar, Nitin 
c 
Setia and Pramod B. Agarwala for the Appellants. 
Uday U Lalit, Ajay Choudhary for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to 
the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench 
dismissing LPA No. 16 of 1993 filed by the appellant 
Rameshwar Prasad. 1(1 this appeal the legal representatives of 
0 
Rameshwar Prasad have been impleaded after his death. By 
the impugned judgment by which two LPAs. i.e. LPA Nos.16 
and 19 of 1993 were disposed of. LPA No.16 of 1993 was filed 
by Rameshwar Pr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.