Summary
Concurrent decrees for specific performance of a 1981 land-sale agreement were reversed because the purchasers failed to prove continuing readiness and willingness. An alleged government restriction on registration was not proved and did not excuse their prolonged inaction after requests for payment and cancellation. The suit was dismissed, but the appellants were directed to pay Rs.30 lakh to the plaintiffs in view of the old advance and the equities of the case.
Issues
- Whether the purchasers proved continuing readiness and willingness under Section 16(c).
- Whether an unproved registration restriction excused failure to tender the balance consideration and prolonged inaction.
- What monetary directions were appropriate after reversal of specific performance.
Provisions considered
- Section 16(c), as applicable to the dispute, Specific Relief Act, 1963Continuing readiness and willingness had to be pleaded and proved; absence of proof of tender, coupled with prolonged silence and an unsubstantiated restriction, defeated specific performance. (¶¶ 22(i), 22(ii), 22(iv), 22(v), 22(vi), 22(vii), 22(viii), 22(ix), 22(x))
Held
- Readiness and willingness are mandatory conditions for specific performance under the law governing this agreement. Readiness concerns capacity to perform and willingness is assessed from conduct; a bare assertion, or the vendor’s alleged breach, does not discharge the purchaser’s burden. (¶ 22(i))
- The plaintiffs did not identify or produce the alleged government order restricting registration or show that it applied to this property. The courts below wrongly accepted that supposed restriction as an excuse for non-performance. (¶¶ 22(ii), 22(iii), 22(vi))
- No specific date of tender, bank draft for the balance or proved request to complete the sale was established. The plaintiffs’ prolonged silence after the vendor requested payment and cancelled the agreement was inconsistent with continuing willingness. (¶¶ 22(iv), 22(v), 22(vii), 22(viii), 22(ix))
- Failure to establish Section 16(c) was sufficient to dismiss the suit. The Court did not decide the other competing arguments concerning subsequent purchasers, registration and possession. (¶¶ 22(x), 22(xi))
- Having regard to the Rs.12,000 advance paid more than four decades earlier and the equities, the appellants were directed to pay Rs.24 lakh in lieu of that advance and Rs.6 lakh in costs, totalling Rs.30 lakh, within three months. Compliance must be filed within four months, failing which the Registry must list the matter. (¶¶ 22(xii), 23)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and suit for specific performance dismissed, subject to payment of Rs.30 lakh by the appellants to the plaintiffs within three months and filing proof within four months.