Summary
The Supreme Court set aside specific performance because the plaintiff had not sufficiently proved readiness and willingness at the relevant times. The courts had confused a later decree-compliance deposit with proof at the contractual date and filing of suit, and assumed the subsequent purchaser’s notice without evidence. On the peculiar facts, the purchaser was instead directed to pay ₹3,50,000 inclusive of the advance, while the plaintiff could recover his court deposit.
Issues
- Whether the concurrent decrees adequately addressed readiness and willingness and the subsequent purchaser’s notice.
- What monetary relief should replace specific performance in the circumstances.
Held
- Even without a defence from the original vendor, the plaintiff had to prove readiness and willingness, including resources to pay the balance at the contractual date and suit. Attendance at the registration office and payment of earnest money did not supply the missing proof here. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The balance was deposited only after the original ex parte decree in 2007. Treating it as if paid before or at suit, and overlooking the need for readiness at the contractual date in 2004, was a concurrent error requiring correction. (¶ 10)
- The purchaser’s residence in the same village did not establish notice of the agreement. Nor did the vendor’s non-appearance alone prove collusion after he had conveyed the property; both conclusions below were unsupported assumptions. (¶ 11)
- Specific performance and invalidation of the subsequent sale were unavailable. In the peculiar circumstances, the purchaser who benefited from the property was directed to pay ₹3,50,000 inclusive of the ₹69,500 advance, in full settlement, within three months, failing which 12% annual interest would run thereafter. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The plaintiff could withdraw his separate ₹70,500 court deposit together with any accrued interest. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; decree for specific performance set aside and replaced by payment of ₹3,50,000 by the appellant within three months, with 12% annual interest thereafter on default. Plaintiff permitted to withdraw the ₹70,500 deposit with accrued interest. Parties to bear their own costs; pending application disposed of.