Plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform is a primary requirement for relief under Specific Relief Act : SC

The Supreme Court of India has upheld the judgment of the the High Court in a specific performance suit, thereby allowing the respondent to claim a decree of specific performance for the sale of land. The court noted that it was clear from the facts of the case that the respondent was ever ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration, while the deceased G. Venugopala Rao failed to measure and demarcate the land. The decision was rendered in the case of G. Venugopala Rao vs Lankala Venkata Narasimha Rao and Ors. The bench comprising Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol dismissed the appeals and affirmed the judgment of the High Court.

The dispute arose from a sale agreement dated 14.08.2002, in which the deceased G. Venugopala Rao agreed to sell 90 cents of land to the respondent, Lankala Venkata Narasimha Rao, for a total consideration of Rs. 9,00,000/-. The respondent had paid Rs. 4,00,000/- as an advance amount at the time of the agreement. The sale agreement stipulated that within three months, G. Venugopala Rao would get the land measured and demarcated, following which the respondent would pay the balance sale consideration. However, G. Venugopala Rao failed to perform his part of the obligation by not measuring and demarcating the land.

The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the sale agreement, which was decreed by the trial court. However, the appeals filed by the appellants before the High Court were allowed, and the suit for specific performance was dismissed on the ground that the respondent had failed to establish his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.

The respondent appealed before the Supreme Court, contending that he had established his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, whereas the deceased G. Venugopala Rao or his legal heirs had failed to perform their obligation with regard to the demarcation of the property.

The Supreme Court observed that the primary requirement to seek relief under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The court noted that it was clear from the facts of the case that the respondent was ever ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration, while the deceased G. Venugopala Rao failed to measure and demarcate the land. The court held that unless the vendor got the subject land measured and demarcated within three months, it would be impossible for the purchaser to get a sale deed executed, and as such, the question of paying the balance sale consideration does not arise.

The court also clarified that the facts of the present case were distinguishable from that of Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd. v. Gudur Narender Singh Rao, where the question of time being the essence of the contract had arisen. The court noted that in the present case, the performance of the purchaser's obligation to pay the balance sale consideration within three months was dependent upon the fulfillment of the vendor's obligation to get the land measured and demarcated within three months. As specific performance of the terms of the contract had not been done, the question of time being the essence did not arise.

Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the appeals.

GADDIPATI DIVIJA & ANR.   VS PATHURI SAMRAJYAM & ORS         

• Lawyer E- News Android Mobile App
• Latest Legal News

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/18-Apr-2023-GADDIPATI-DIVIJA-vs-Pathuri-Samrajyam.pdf"]