Mohammed Khaleel (D) Through Lrs & Ors. Vs Jayamma (Supreme Court of India)
Specific Performance Denied for Failure to Prove Continuous Readiness & Willingness Despite Suit Being Within Limitation-Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the purchaser’s appeal and upheld the High Court’s refusal to grant specific performance of an agreement to sell. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the mandatory requirement of continuous readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
The Court observed that financial readiness must be proved with reference to the relevant period. The purchaser relied upon Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) created several years after the institution of the suit, which could not establish availability of funds when the contract was to be performed or when the suit was filed. The Court reiterated that while actual deposit of the sale consideration is unnecessary, reliable evidence of financial capacity during the relevant period is essential.
The Court also held that the purchaser had failed to cooperate in obtaining the requisite permission under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULCRA), despite such permission being the responsibility of both parties. His passive conduct reflected lack of willingness to perform the contract.
On the issue of delay, the Supreme Court emphasised that filing a suit within the limitation period does not automatically entitle a party to specific performance. A plaintiff seeking this equitable relief must approach the Court with reasonable promptness and diligence. In the present case, although the suit was filed within limitation, it was instituted two years and nine months after the defendant’s refusal, which, coupled with the absence of proof of readiness and willingness, disentitled the plaintiff to discretionary relief. The Court relied upon earlier decisions including N.P. Thirugnanam, His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji, Man Kaur, and Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar while affirming these principles. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
