TELIKICHERLA SESIBHUSHAN (DEAD) BY LRS. versus KALLI RAJA RAO (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 688 · Decided: 08-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 688 
TELIKICHERLA SESIBHUSHAN (DEAD) BY LRS. 
V. 
KALLI RAJA RAO (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6071-6072 OF 2007) 
SEPTEMBER 08, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE : Suit for specific 
C performance - Clause 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 
provides that specific performance of contract cannot be 
enforced in favour of 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 
D performed by him, other than those terms, the performance 
of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant - In 
the instant case, there was concurrent finding of fact against 
the appellant by both the courts below that the appellant failed 
to prove that he had been ready and willing to perform his part 
E of the contract - Suit for specific performance of contractwas 
filed by the appellant after a period of seven years, and it was 
not proved that the appellant had been always ready and 
willing to perform his part of contract - As such, he is not 
entitled to the relief of specific performance of contract -
F Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s.16(c). 
The respondent agreed to sell the suit property for 
Rs. 80,0001-. The agreement of sale disclosed that the 
respondent had taken a loan of Rs. 20,000/- in the year 
1969 and as he could not repay the loan he decided to 
G sell his land and the appellant agreed to repay the loan 
amount due from the respondent to the Bank. The 
appellant though made certain payments but failed to 
repay the entire loan amount. The Bank filed a recovery 
suit. In the said suit, the appellant got himself impleaded 
H 
688 
, TELIKICHERLASESIBHUSHAN (DEAD) BY LRS. v. KALLI 
689 
RAJA RAO (DEAD) BY LRS. 
as party. The recovery suit was decreed. 
A 
As the appellant did not fulfill the commitment made 
by him regarding the repayment of the loan amount, the 
respondent filed a suit against him for recovery of 
possession of land which he had delivered to him at the 
8 
time of agreement of sale. The appellant filed a suit after 
seven years of agreement against the respondent for 
specific performance of contract. 
The suit by the respondent was dismissed and the 
suit filed by the appellant for specific performance of C 
contract was partly allowed with direction to pay back the 
amount paid by him towards repayment of loan. The High 
Court set aside the order of the trial court pertaining to 
suit for possession filed by the respondent. The order of 
the trial court relating to the suit for specific performance 
D 
was upheld. The instant appeals were filed challenging 
the order of the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. There was concurrent finding of fact 
E 
against the appellant by both the courts below that the 
appellant failed to prove that he had been ready and 
willing to perform his part of the contract. Since the 
appellant failed to repay the entire loan amount in terms 
of the agreement, and the suit filed by the Bank against 
F 
the debtor for recovery of remaining amount of loan was 
decreed, as such, there was ample evidence on record 
to hold that the appellant failed to perform his part of 
contract, as such, it cannot be said that he is entitled to 
the relief of specific performance of contract. The suit for G 
specific performance of contract was filed by the 
appellant after a period of seven years, and it is not 
proved on the record that the appellant had been always 
ready and willing to perform his part of contract. [Para 4] 
[693-F-H; 694-A] 
H 
690 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Clause 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 
provides that specific performance of contract cannot be 
enforced in favour of 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 
B which are to be performed by him, other than terms the 
performance of which he has been prevented or waived 
by the defendant. In the instant case, due to the failure 
on the part of the appellant to repay the loan in terms of 
the agreement and further considering the fact that not 
c only the suit filed by the creditor Bank was decreed 
against the debtor but it attained finality, the Courts below 
have committed no error of law in refusing to decree the 
suit of the appellant for specific performance of co

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