The Supreme Court emphasized the critical distinction between "readiness" and "willingness" in fulfilling contractual obligations, noting that both elements are essential for granting the relief of specific performance. The matter before the Apex Court originated from a decision by the Karnataka High Court, which had allowed the appeal of the original defendant and overturned the trial court's judgment and decree granting specific performance in favor of the petitioner.

 

The Division Bench, consisting of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, observed, “The law is well settled. The plaintiff is obliged not only to make specific statement and averments in the plaint but is also obliged to adduce necessary oral and documentary evidence to show the availability of funds to make payment in terms of the contract in time.” Advocate-on-Record Vaijayanthi Girish represented the petitioner, while Advocate Manjunath Meled appeared for the respondent.

 

In this case, the petitioner, as the original plaintiff, had filed a suit seeking specific performance based on a sale agreement. The total sale consideration under the agreement was set at ₹30 lakh, with ₹12.5 lakh paid as earnest money at the time of executing the agreement. The petitioner claimed he was consistently ready and willing to fulfill his contractual obligations, but the respondent (the original defendant) was unwilling to execute the sale deed despite receiving the earnest money. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting specific performance; however, the High Court, upon appeal, found against the petitioner, questioning his readiness and willingness.

 

The Bench, in its judgment, clarified the legal framework under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (as it stood prior to the amendment effective from October 1, 2018). The provision disallows specific performance for individuals who fail to demonstrate both readiness and willingness to fulfill their contractual obligations. The Bench elaborated that "readiness" pertains to the plaintiff’s ability to perform, including their financial capability, while "willingness" refers to their conduct throughout the transaction.

 

The High Court, upon thoroughly analyzing the evidence—both oral and documentary—had determined that the petitioner failed to establish consistent readiness and willingness. Affirming the High Court's findings, the Supreme Court concluded that this determination was factual and not perverse, providing no grounds for interference. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

 

Cause Title: R. Shama Naik v. G. Srinivasiah

Citation: 2024 INSC 927

Date: November-28-2024

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala , Justice R. Mahadevan

 

[Read/Download order]