Summary
The Supreme Court restored dismissal of a suit to enforce an agreement for reconveyance. The sale deed and surrounding evidence established an outright sale, not a nominal security transaction. Although readiness and willingness had been sufficiently pleaded, the plaintiff failed to prove means to pay or willingness to meet the contractual terms. Physical production of cash was unnecessary, but a bare assertion of readiness could not replace evidence of financial capacity and consistent conduct.
Issues
- Whether the sale was nominal security or an outright transaction accompanied by an agreement to reconvey.
- Whether the plaintiff proved continuous readiness and willingness to obtain specific performance.
Held
- The transaction’s character depended on the documents and surrounding circumstances. The clear absolute-sale recitals and evidence showed a sale; the separately executed same-day reconveyance agreement did not make it a mortgage by conditional sale. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The pleadings sufficiently asserted readiness and willingness, but proof was separately required. The plaintiff’s conduct before and after suit and the entirety of the circumstances determined whether the requirement continued through adjudication. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- The plaintiff need not physically produce ready cash but had to prove means to generate the consideration. His admitted lack of income or property and absence of supporting evidence beyond the witness’s assertion failed that requirement. (¶ 20)
- The effort to extinguish the debt and recover the property without payment, denial of contractual interest, and the defendants’ payment of bank dues to save the property reinforced the failure to establish readiness and willingness. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and trial court decree dismissing the suit restored. No order as to costs.