Jugraj Singh & Anr. Vs. Labh Singh & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition(C) No.19640 of 1994.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 31.5.94 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Regular Second A.No. 2069 of 1990)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 31.5.94 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Regular Second A.No. 2069 of 1990)
Petitioner: Jugraj Singh & Anr.
Respondent: Labh Singh & Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition(C) No.19640 of 1994.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 31.5.94 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Regular Second A.No. 2069 of 1990)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 31.5.94 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Regular Second A.No. 2069 of 1990)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY & N.VENKATACHALA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 28, 1994
Appearances:
Mr.Rajinder Sachher, Sr. Advocate Ms.Rani Chhabra, Ms.Bharathi Sharma, Advocates with him for the Petitioners.
Head Note:
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT 1963:
Section 16(c) – Held that plea of demanding specific performance is available only to vendor /defendant and is personal to him, and subsequent purchasers have no right – The plea that plaintiff must be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract must be available only to the vendor or his legal representatives but not to subsequent purchasers – SLP dismissed.
Cases Reffered:
1. Gomathinavagam Pillai & Ors. v. Palaniswami Nadar (AIR 1967 SC 868) (Para 5)
2. Ardeshir R. Rama v. Flora Sesson (AIR 1928 P.C. 208) (Para 4)
2. Ardeshir R. Rama v. Flora Sesson (AIR 1928 P.C. 208) (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The petitioners are defendants 2 and 3. The first defendant-Jasbir Singh had executed an agreement of sale dated 30.8.1984 in favour of the plaintiffs Labh Singh and his brother Surinder Singh. The petitioners had an agreement of sale on 4.1.1985. The plaintiffs filed the suit against Jasbir Singh, the first defendant. All the courts have concurrently found that the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 are not bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the prior agreement dated 30.8.84 and accordingly, decreed the suit. Thus, this S.L.P.
2. It is contended for the petitioners that the trial court having found the petitioners to be necessary parties was not right in negativing the plea of the petitioners that Labh Singh-plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the High Court equally committed an error of law in rejecting that plea. We find no force in the contention.
3. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the plaintiff must plead and prove that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the essential terms of the contract. The continuous readiness and willingness at all stages from the date of the agreement till the date of the hearing of the suit
need to be proved. The substance
of the matter and surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the plaintiff must be taken into consideration in adjudging readiness and willingness to perform the plaintiff’s part of the
contract.
4. The Privy Council in Ardeshir R. Rama v. Flora Sesson (AIR 1928 P.C. 208) has held that in a suit for specific performance the averment of readiness and willingness on plaintiff’s part upto the date of the decree is necessary.
5. This Court in Gomathinavagam Pillai & Ors. v. Palaniswami Nadar (AIR 1967 SC 868) quoting with approval Ardeshir’s case (supra) had held as follows:
“But the respondent has claimed a decree for specific performance and it is for him to establish that he was, since the date of the contract, continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. If he fails to do so, his claim for specific performance must fail.”
6. That plea is specifically available to the vendor/defendant. It is personal to him. The subsequent purchasers have got only the right to defend their purchase on the premise that they have no prior knowledge of the agreement of sale with the plaintiff. They are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. Though they are necessary parties to the suit, since any decree obtained by the plaintiff would be binding on the subsequent purchasers, the plea that the plaintiff must always be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract must be available only to the vendor or his legal representatives, but not to the subsequent purchasers. The High Court, therefore, was right in rejecting the petitioners’ contention and rightly did not accept the plea. We do not find any ground warranting interference.
7. The S.L.P. is accordingly dismissed.
1. The petitioners are defendants 2 and 3. The first defendant-Jasbir Singh had executed an agreement of sale dated 30.8.1984 in favour of the plaintiffs Labh Singh and his brother Surinder Singh. The petitioners had an agreement of sale on 4.1.1985. The plaintiffs filed the suit against Jasbir Singh, the first defendant. All the courts have concurrently found that the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 are not bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the prior agreement dated 30.8.84 and accordingly, decreed the suit. Thus, this S.L.P.
2. It is contended for the petitioners that the trial court having found the petitioners to be necessary parties was not right in negativing the plea of the petitioners that Labh Singh-plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the High Court equally committed an error of law in rejecting that plea. We find no force in the contention.
3. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the plaintiff must plead and prove that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the essential terms of the contract. The continuous readiness and willingness at all stages from the date of the agreement till the date of the hearing of the suit
need to be proved. The substance
of the matter and surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the plaintiff must be taken into consideration in adjudging readiness and willingness to perform the plaintiff’s part of the
contract.
4. The Privy Council in Ardeshir R. Rama v. Flora Sesson (AIR 1928 P.C. 208) has held that in a suit for specific performance the averment of readiness and willingness on plaintiff’s part upto the date of the decree is necessary.
5. This Court in Gomathinavagam Pillai & Ors. v. Palaniswami Nadar (AIR 1967 SC 868) quoting with approval Ardeshir’s case (supra) had held as follows:
“But the respondent has claimed a decree for specific performance and it is for him to establish that he was, since the date of the contract, continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. If he fails to do so, his claim for specific performance must fail.”
6. That plea is specifically available to the vendor/defendant. It is personal to him. The subsequent purchasers have got only the right to defend their purchase on the premise that they have no prior knowledge of the agreement of sale with the plaintiff. They are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. Though they are necessary parties to the suit, since any decree obtained by the plaintiff would be binding on the subsequent purchasers, the plea that the plaintiff must always be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract must be available only to the vendor or his legal representatives, but not to the subsequent purchasers. The High Court, therefore, was right in rejecting the petitioners’ contention and rightly did not accept the plea. We do not find any ground warranting interference.
7. The S.L.P. is accordingly dismissed.
