SITA RAM AND ORS. versus RADHEY SHY AM

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 552 · Decided: 05-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SITA RAM AND ORS. 
).... 
'. 
v. 
RADHEY SHY AM 
OCTOBER 5, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARiill P ASAY AT AND LOKESHW AR SINGH P ANTA,JJ.] 
1 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: 
c 
s.16(c)-Claim for specific relief-Held: Not to be denied if 
conduct of plaintiff is blemishless. 
The plaintiff-appellant filed suit for specific performance of 
contract. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The First appellate Court 
D set aside the decree on the ground that pleadings were not in accordance 
with provisions of s.16( c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963. The High Court 
also dismissed the second appeal. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that in the plaint in 
essence, specific statement had been made about the fact that the 
E 
plaintiffs had mentioned to the defendant that they were ready and 
willing to do such effort or act as would be necessary to be done by the 
plaintiffs for performance of the contract and, therefore, the first 
appellate court and the High Court were not justified in holding that the 
requirements of s. 16( c) of the Act were not met. 
_._ 
F 
Respondent contended that the reading of the plaint indicated that 
Khasra No. 866 was later on added and, therefore, the question of the 
plaintiffs being ready and willing to perform the contract as originally 
stood, docs not really arise. He also made specific reference to the 
G pleadings to the effect that though the documents were executed on 
1.9.1977, the same was complete and on that basis the sale has been 
...,._ 
concluded. It is submitted that if the sale was concluded as pleaded, the 
question of filing the suit for specific contract does not arise. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Com1 
H 
552 
~· 
I 
SITA RAM v. RADHEY SHYAM [PASAYAT, J.] 
553 
HELD: 1. The basic principle behind s.16( c) of Specific Relief Act, A 
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 grant relief on the basis of the 
conduct of the person seeking relief. If the pleadings manifest that the B 
conduct of the plaintiff entitles him to get the relief on perusal of the 
plaint he should not be denied the relief. [Para 10] 
2. There is no dispute that there was claim in respect of Khasra 
866 which did not form part of the agreement. There was also an C 
averment to the effect that the agreement related to a completed sale. 
[Parallj 
Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha and Ors., [2005] 7 SCC 534, relied 
on. 
D 
Ardeshir H Mamav. Flora Sassoon, AIR (1928) PC 208; Prem Raj 
v. The D.L.F Housing and Construction (Private) Ltd and Anr., AIR 
(1968) SC 1355; Syed Dastagirv. T.R Gopalakrishna Settty, [1999) 6 SCC 
337; Motilal Jain v. Ramdasi Devi (Smt.) and Ors., [2000) 6 SCC 420; 
and Lord Campbell in Corkv.Ambergate etc. and Railway Co., (1851) E 
117ER1229, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4656 of 
2007. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 24.10.2005 of the High F 
Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Civil 
Second Appeal No. 535 of2005. 
Ajay Choudhary and Vijay Pal Singh for the Appellants. 
Sushil Kumar Jain Puneet Jain, Christi Jain, Piyush Jain and Pratibha G 
Jain for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT P ASA VAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
H 
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single 
Judge of the Jaipur Bench ofRajasthan High Court dismissing the Second 
Appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants. It is to be noted that the trial court . 
decreed the suit, which was one for specific perfonnance of a contract 
while the first appellate court set aside the decree. The appellate court 
B dismissed the suit on the ground that the pleadings were not in accordance 
with the provisions of Section 16( c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in 
short the 'Act'). Learned Single Judge dismissed the Second Appeal 
holding that no substantial question oflaw was involved as essentially the 
conclusions of the first appellate court were factual findings. 
c 
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants 
submitted that in the plaint, in essence, specific statement had been made 
about the fact that the plaintiffs had mentioned to the defendant that they 
were ready and willing to do such effort or act as w

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