SILVEY & ORS. versus ARUN VARGHESE & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 442 · Decided: 26-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 3 S.C.R. 442 
A 
SILVEY & ORS. 
v. 
ARUN VARGHESE & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 830 of 2002) 
B 
FEBRUARY 26, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
... 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Agreement to sell land - Suit 
for specific performance by purchasers - Dismissed by trial 
c court, however, decree for specific performance granted by 
High Court - Correctness of - Held: High Court rightly held 
that vendors were not ready to perform their obligation in terms 
of the contract and took false plea in written statement -
Purchasers have always been and are ready and willing to 
D perform their part of contract from its inception - Hence, order 
of High Court upheld. 
The appellants-defendants entered into an agreement 
for sale of property with the respondents-plaintiffs. The 
plaintiff's paid the advance amount. The sale deed was to 
E be executed by a given date. The defendants were to 
furnish the plaintiffs with all the documents. The plaintiffs 
filed suit for specific performance of agreement for sale 
since the defendants did not perform their part of contract. 
The trial court held that the plaintiffs were never ready 
F and willing to perform their part of contract and did not 
take prompt steps for enforcing its obligations under the 
agreement and on that basis the defendants expended 
amounts for improvement of the property. The tri"I court 
dismissed the suit, however, granted the decree for 
G recovery of advance amount paid to the defendants. In 
appeal, High Court decreed the suit in favour of the 
plaintiffs. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
442 
SILVEY & ORS. v. ARUN VARGHESE & ANR. 
443 
~ 
HELD: 1.1 High Court found that platntiffs can be said A 
to have been always ready and willing to perform their 
part of the contract from the inception of the contract to 
the date of the decree of the trial court. High Court rightly 
noted that the plaintiffs pleaded in terms of section 16 C 
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 that they have always been B 
and are ready and willing to perform their part of the 
"' .. 
contract. The case of the plaintiffs was that the defendants 
were not ready with the document as contemplated in the 
agreement for sale which resulted in the delay in the 
performance of the contract and in the plaintiffs seeking c 
the performance of the contract by the defendants. 
[Paras 8 and 10] [447-H; 448-A, E, F, G] 
1.2. The High Court noticed that the agreement in 
respect of the adjacent land was entered into much before 
the agreement in question. There was no impediment on D 
~ 
• 
the plaintiffs obtaining a sale deed in respect of adjacent 
land or that they apprehended it at any point of time that 
they were not going to get an assignment to that extent. 
The assignment in fact was obtained in respect of the 
adjacent land. The High Court rightly highlighted that the E 
. defendants had not performed their part of the contract 
under agreement for sale as Urey had not obtained 
requisite licence.for planting rubber plant, except in case 
of defendant No. 3. None of the other defendants had 
~ 
obtained the registration book for registration as a rubber 
estate with the Rubber Board as envisaged by Clause 7 F 
of the Agreement for sale. [Para 11] [448-G, H; 449-A, BJ 
1.3. Defendant no.3 acc~pted that possession 
certificates could not be obtained by the defendants in 
view of the nature of the property involved in the context G 
of Kerala Land Reforms Act, and the Kerala Private Forest 
(Vesting and Assignment) Act. The defendants never 
.. 
responded to the letter issued by the plaintiffs seeking 
performance of the contract. No response was also sent 
to the other letters. A letter sent through registered post .H 
444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A was refused. The lawyer's notice was also not responded 
to. [Para 12] [449-C, D] 
1.4 The defendants pleaded that defendant No. 3 had 
gone to the house of plaintiff No. 2 in place 'A' prior to 
receivinn any letter from the plaintiffs and had spoken that 
8 they had told him that they were not keen in enforcing the 
obligation under the agreement for sale. But when 
~ 
examined the defendant No. 3 admitted that he had never 
met the plaintiff as pleaded in the written statement and 
that he or any other defendant had never gone to place 
C 'A' to meet plaintiff No. 2 at his residence to speak about 
the performance of the contract. The plea stated in t~e 
written statement was aba

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