Summary
In 2005 a buyer agreed to buy Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights over 37 cents of land in Kerala, paying only Rs. 10,000, about 4%, as advance. The sellers needed money for the first defendant's heart treatment. The trial court decreed specific performance with the price raised by 25%, but the Kerala High Court set the decree aside under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. The two Judges differed. Shah J. would restore the decree, since execution, part payment and readiness had been found and the High Court had not upset those findings, and would require a further Rs. 10 lakh under Article 142. Nagarathna J. would dismiss the appeal. She found readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) unproved, the plaintiff having neither measured the land nor acted within the six months. The matter was referred to a larger Bench.
Issues
- Whether the High Court rightly set aside a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights, where only about 4% of the price was paid and the trial court had enhanced the consideration by 25%.
- Whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Provisions considered
- Section 20 (before and after Act 18 of 2018), Specific Relief Act, 1963Per Shah J., the High Court invoked Section 20 without upsetting the trial court's findings; per Nagarathna J., the 2018 substitution makes the relief non-discretionary but subject to Sections 11(2), 14 and 16, and the applicability of the old Section 20 to earlier transactions was left open. (¶¶ 6, 7, 12, 14, 16, 37)
- Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act, 1963Per Nagarathna J., the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness judged from his conduct (J.P. Builders, Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji), and failure is fatal irrespective of hardship. (¶¶ 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 34, 36)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaShah J. would direct the plaintiff to pay a further Rs. 10 lakh to the defendants to do complete justice. (¶ 8)
Held
- Per Shah J., the defendants admitted the agreement and part payment, pleaded their own readiness and never pleaded a forced or inequitable bargain; the enhancement of price could aggrieve only the plaintiff, and the High Court erred in setting aside the decree without disturbing the trial court's findings; the decree would be restored with a further payment of Rs. 10 lakh. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8)
- Per Nagarathna J., the plaintiff took no step to measure the property, paid only 4% and served notice only nine months after the six-month period expired, while the defendants promptly sought the purchase certificate; given the sellers' urgent need, time was of the essence (Saradamani Kandappan, K.S. Vidyanadam), and readiness and willingness were not proved. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34)
- Per Nagarathna J., enhancement of consideration under Pratap Lakshman Muchandi can balance equities only where Section 16 is satisfied and cannot be used to grant specific performance to a plaintiff who has not performed his obligations; she would affirm the High Court and dismiss the appeal. (¶¶ 35, 36, 38)
Result
In Civil Appeal No. 4072 of 2022 against the Kerala High Court judgment dated 03.11.2021 in R.F.A. No. 63 of 2009, Shah J. would allow the appeal and restore the decree on a further payment of Rs. 10 lakh, while Nagarathna J. would dismiss it; in view of the split verdict the matter was referred to a larger Bench.