Summary
A purchaser put in possession under a sale agreement failed to pay the promised customary rent during prolonged title litigation and later denied liability. The Court held that rent was an essential contractual term and reciprocal to possession. Even treating it as independent, the purchaser’s default defeated readiness and willingness and made specific performance inequitable under the law applicable to the suit. Both specific performance and alternative monetary relief were refused.
Issues
- Whether failure to pay agreed rent defeated the purchaser’s claim to specific performance.
- Whether equitable discretion and the alternative refund claim favoured the purchaser.
Provisions considered
- Section 16(c) and Explanation (ii), Specific Relief Act, 1963Readiness and willingness must extend to essential terms according to the contract’s true construction, including the agreed rent. (¶¶ 6, 9, 10, 13)
- Former Section 20, Specific Relief Act, 1963The discretionary regime applicable to the suit permitted refusal where the purchaser’s conduct made enforcement inequitable and caused hardship. (¶¶ 7, 8, 14, 15)
Held
- Whether promises are reciprocal depends on the particular agreement. Here possession was delivered on the clear undertaking to pay customary rent if the pending litigation exceeded a year, making rent an essential reciprocal promise. (¶¶ 3, 9)
- The purchaser paid no rent and denied liability instead of offering performance when challenged. The absence of a fixed payment date did not excuse thirteen years of non-payment; a separate rent-recovery remedy did not entitle him to specific performance despite default. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
- Even if the rent promise were distinct, continued cultivation without rent after paying only a small portion of the price was inequitable and caused hardship. The applicable discretionary relief was therefore unavailable. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
The appeals were allowed, all decrees below set aside and the specific-performance suit dismissed. Alternative monetary relief was also denied because the respondents had enjoyed the land for fifty-five years without rent. No costs were ordered.