Holding

The plaintiff did not establish readiness and willingness and had notice of the subsequent sale, so specific performance could not be granted.

Summary

Azhar Sultana entered into a sale agreement with Ramesh Chand Khanna and paid an advance of Rs 30,000. While the agreement was pending, Khanna sold the same property to defendants 5 and 6 by a registered deed, after which the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of her original agreement. The Supreme Court examined whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, whether the suit was barred by limitation, and whether the defendants were bona‑fide purchasers for value without notice under Section 19(b) of the Act and Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness, had constructive notice of the registered deed, and therefore could not claim specific performance; the decree was discretionary under Section 20. Consequently, the Court refused specific performance and, exercising its discretion, ordered the defendants to pay Rs 60,000 (including the advance) to the plaintiff. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
Whether the suit for specific performance is barred by limitation.
Whether the defendants are bona‑fide purchasers for value without notice under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act and Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Whether the court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act to grant specific performance.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedures. Order 41 Rule 31, s. Order VIII Rule 9
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 120
Specific Relief Act, 1963s. 16(c), s. 19(b), s. 20
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 3

Subjects

Specific performanceSubsequent purchaserBona fide purchaserReadiness and willingnessLimitation periodDiscretionary jurisdictionTransfer of Property ActSpecific Relief Act

Judgment

• [2009] 2 S.C.R. 537

AZHAR SULTANA A
V.
B. RAJAMANI & ORS.
Civil Appeal No.1077 of 2009
FEBRUARY 17, 2009
B
(S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.)
Specific Relief Act, 1963:
J
~ ss.16(c), 19(b) - Subsequent purchaser of land - Plea
for Specific Performance of the contract- Knowledge of earlier c
sale - Readiness and willingness to perform contract - Failure ~
to establish - Further, grant of decree of specific performance
of contract is discretionary - Conduct of both parties not good
- Interest of justice would be subserved if the Court refuses to
exercise discretionary jurisdiction and defendant directed to
0
.... pay Rs. 60, 0001- to plaintiff which would include advance paid
J., by her - Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
In this appeal filed against the judgment of the High
Court, the subsequent purchasers arrayed at a later stage
in a suit for Specific Performance of contract, questioned E
the said judgment of the High Court.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In view of the fact that approval was
required to be obtained from the competent authority, the F
plaintiff could not have proceeded on the assumption that
the suit could be filed within a period of three years from
the date of refusal on the part of the original defendant to
execute the said deed of sale in terms of the agreement.
[Para 14] [548-8, C] G
>-. 2. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 were in possession of the
properties. The deed of sale was a registered one. Plaintiff,
therefore, must be deemed to have notice thereof in terms

537 H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.
';

A of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. She, however,
..-~
neither in her notice nor in her plaint raised any question
with regard to the bona fide or otherwise of the transaction
of sale entered into by and between Shri Khanna and the
respondent Nos.5 and 6. Prior to execution of the said
B deed of sale dated 30.10.1981, the suit filed by Khanna
against Bahadur Hussain was dismissed by the appellate
court by a judgment and decree dated 30.11.1978. There
does not appear to be any reason as to why the plaintiff -\
cannot be said to have been not aware thereof. It was, ..
c therefore, expected that not only the subsequent
purchasers but also Bahadur Hussain be impleaded as
parties in the suit. It is of some significance to notice that
replication to the said written statement was filed wherefor
no leave was obtain·ed. [Para 15] [ 548-0, E, F]
D 3. Indisputably again, although the written statem~nt
i-·
was filed by Shri Khanna on 30.8.1983, defendant Nos.5 ;..
and 6 were impleaded as parties only in the year 1987. It·
is f~r the first time in the replication, the plaintiff alleged
tha.t·there had been a collusion by and between Khanna
E and Bahadur Hussain. Bahadur Hussain, however, was.
not imp leaded as a party. Replication was filed in 1991. ·
Such a contention has been raised only in 1991 which
was impermissible in law. [Para 16] [ 548-G, H; 549-A]
4. It may be true that the name of the purchaser was ·!'--
"'
F not' disclosed but then it was open to the plaintiff to ask -
for other and better particulars of the said stateme.nts~ why
she had to wait for a period of more than thr~e years for.
impleading the subsequent purchasers as parties has not
been explained. Even an application for injunction wa~.
G filed only in September 1985. According to her husband,
she came to learn about the sale of property in the name
...
,-•
of defendant No.5 only on 29.9.1986. Why an inquiry was
not made in the Registration Office although the~, deed of
sale was a registered one again defies anybody's
H comprehension. Readiness and willingness on the part
AZHAR SULTANA V. B. RAJAMANI & ORS. 539

,... ...,
of the plaintiff, therefore, is required to be considered from A
the aforementioned backdrop of events. [Para 17] [549-8, C]
5. It was not necessary that the entire amount of
consideration should be kept ready and the plaintiff must
file proof in respect thereof. It may also be correct to
contend that only because the plaintiff who is a Muslim B
lady, did not examine herself and got examined on her
f
~
behalf, her husband, the same by itself would lead to a
conclusion that she was not ready and willing to perform
her part of contract. [Para 20] [551-C]
c
5.2 If the plaintiff has failed to establish that she had
all along been ready and willing to perform her part of
contract, it would not be necessary to enter into the
question as to whether the defendant Nos.5 and 6 were
..
._, ·' I
bona fide subsequent purchasers for value without notice
D
or not. Furthermore, grant of decree for specific
performance of contract is discretionary. The contesting
....
respondents herein are living in the property since 1981
in their own right. There is absolutely no reason as to why
they should be forced to vacate the said property at this
juncture. [Paras 21, 22] [551-D, E] E
~ 5.3 The plaintiff herself has taken a positive plea that
~
there had been a collusion between Khanna and Bahadur
Hussain. Such a case has neither been pleaded nor
proved. No issue in this behalf was framed. Even F
otherwise, the question of the defendant's discharging
the burden would arise provided the plaintiff is found to
be entitled to a decree for specific performance of
contract. [Para 23] (551-F, G]
~"""! 6. The conduct of the respondent was not good but, G
~
similarly, one cannot lose sight of the conduct of the
appellants as well. She had also not brought any evidence
to show that she did not have the notice of the said deed
of sale. Thus, the interest of justice would be subserved
if this Court refuses to exercise its discretionary H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A jurisdiction in terms of Section 20 of the Act, directing the
defendant to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the plaintiff which
sum would include the amount of advance paid by her.
[Para 24] [551-H; 552-A, B]
Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal (2002) 1 SCC 134 and
8 Ram Awadh (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. v. Achhaibar Dubey & Anr.
(2000) 2 sec 428 - relied on.
Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji; Anantalakshmi ·~
Pathabi Ramasharma Yeturi & Ors.; J9dhan Real Estate
c Development Co. (P) Ltd. & Anr.; Rajendra Garg Etc.;
Shamshul Islam etc. v. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 234
- referred to.

Case Law Reference
AIR 1981 SC 234 referred to Para 8
D
c2002) 1 sec 134 relied on Para 18
(2000) 2 sec 428 relied on Para 19
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1077
E of 2009 ,_
From the final Judgement and Order dated 21.12.2004 of
the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
in City Civil Court Appeal No. 51 of 1993.

F Uday U. Lalit, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan,
Vaibhav Mishra and H. Venugopal (for Mis. Lawyer's knit & Co.)
with him for the Appellant.
Ranjit Kumar, S. Madhusudhan Babu, V. Venkata Ramana,
P. Prabhakar and P. Venkata Ramana (for Mukesh K. Giri), with
G him for the Respondents.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by

S.B. ·SINHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
H
AZHAR SULTANA V. B. RAJAMANI & ORS. 541
[S.B. SINHA J.]
~ ... 2. Subsequent purchasers who were arrayed at a later A
stage in a suit for Specific Performance of Contract are before
us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order
dated 21.12.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad allowing the appeal from
a judgment and order dated 21.7.1993 passed by the First B
Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in OS No.1436
f of 1981 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant herein.
...
3. The factual matrix involved herein is as under:
The property in question admittedly belonged to one c
Ramesh Chand Khanna, the original defendant. An agreement
of sale was entered into by and between the appellant and the
said Ramesh Chand Khanna in terms whereof the suit land was
agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs.325/- per sq. yd. A sum of
_.., Rs.30,000/- was paid by way of advance.
,. D
4. It now stands admitted that on or about 7.12.1981, an
application was filed in terms of Section 27 of the Urban Land
Ceiling and (Regulation) Act, 1970. The said application was
rejected.
It is also not in dispute that a suit was filed by one Bahadur E
Hussain against the original defendant. The said suit was
_,;.
decreed in favour of the said Shri Bahadur Hussain .
.,,
5. Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 entered into a deed of sale
dated 31.10.1981 with the said Ramesh Chand Khanna (since F
deceased) for a land measuring 217 sq. yds. for a consideration
calculated at the rate of Rs.48,000/- per bigha wherefor
negotiation had to be entered into for settlement of the dispute

•--
by and between Ramesh Chand Khanna and the said Bahadur
Hussain. Only after execution of the deed of sale, a notice was
G
~ issued by the appellant asking Shri Khanna to execute a deed
of sale in his favour.
The suit for specific performance was filed on or about
7.12.1981. As indicated hereinbefore, in the original suit the
defendant Nos.5 and 6 were not impleaded as parties. A written H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

.... ,
A statement was filed by Shri Khanna on or about 30.8.1983
wherein he disclosed the factum of execution of the deed of
sale dated 31.10.1981. The said defendants were impleaded
as parties. One of the contentions raised by the said imp leaded
defendants was that they were subsequent purchasers for value
B and without notice to the original agreement for sale entered
into by and between the appellants and the said Shri Khanna.
~
6. In view of the pleadirigs of the parties, the learned Trial ~·

Judge framed the following issues :

c "1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific
performance of agreement in respect of suit
schedule property?

2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

3) To what relief? r--
D •
Additional issues were also framed, viz. :

-. 1) Whether the defendant No.6 is a bona fide
purchaser of the suit property for value without
notice of the suit agreement of sale in favour of
E
the plaintiff?
~

2) Whether the suit agreement of sale is not .;.....
binding on the defendants including the ,,
defendant Nos.5 an'd 6?"
F The learned trial Judge decreed the suit, interalia, opining
that defendant Nos.5 and 6 had knowledge about the agr~ement
of sale entered into by and between the plaintiff and Khanna
and, thus, the provision of Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief

. .1
Act was not attracted.
G
Indisputably, before the learned Trial Judge, the plaintiff-
appellant did not examine herself. On her behalf, her husband
who was also the holder of a General Power of Attorney was
examined.

H The learned Trial Judge held the agreement dated
AZHAR SULTANA V. B. RAJAMANI & ORS. 543
[S.B. SINHA J.]
r- _,.
4.12.1978 to be enforceable. It was furthermore held that the A
suit was not barred by limitation. It was observed that although
grant of a decree for specific performance of a contract is
discretionary in nature but as the plaintiff had paid a substantial
amount, she should be held to be entitled thereto.
-\ The defendant Nos.5 and 6 preferred an appeal B
thereagainst. By reason of the impugned judgment, as noticed
I
~
hereinbefore, the High Court allowed the said appeal. The High
Court formulated the following points for its consideration in
terms of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which
... are as under: c
"1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to seek enforcement of
specific performance of Ex.A 1, agreement of sale?

... """
2) Whether sixth defendant is bona fide purchaser of
the suit schedule property having paid her D
consideration in good faith and without notice of the
original contract? And
3) Whether the discretion of this Court ought not to be
exercised in favour of the plaintiff for specific
performance of Ex.A 1?" E
......- 7. The Court in a suit for specific performance of contrqct
c.!
is required to pose unto itself the following questions, namely:
(1) Whether the agreement of sale is valid and binding
on both the vendor and the vendee; and F

(2) Whether the plaintiff has all along been and still is
ready and willing to perform his part of the contract
as envisaged under Section 16(c) of the Specific
,J.
Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to for the sake G
~
4 brevity as 'the Act').
8. It was, however, held that readiness and willingness on
the part of the plaintiff to perform her part of contract having been
conveyed in a telegraphic notice (Exhibit A3); it was obliQatory
on the part of the plaintiff-appellant to examine herself in the H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A suit and as she did not examine herself, the legal requirements f" --,

envisaged under Section 16(c) of the Act cannot be said to have
been complied with. It was furthermore held that as no evidence
was adduced to establish that the amount of consideration which
was required to be paid to the defendant w~s available with the
B plaintiff, she was not ready and willing to perform her part of
contract. It was observed that for the aforementioned purpose, J

contents of the legal notice dated 16/20.11.1981 (Ex.A3) would \
not be decisive. Noticing that despite the fact that Section 27 of
1976 Act was declared ultra vi res by this Court in Maharao Sahib
c Shri Bhim Singhji; Anantalakshmi Pathabi Ramasharma Yeturi
& Ors.; Jodhan Real Estate Develogment Co. (P} Ltd. & Anr.;
Rajendra Garg Etc.; Shamshul Islam etc. v. Union of India &Anr.
[AIR 1981 SC 234] it was opined that as the said provision was
very much on statute book at the relevant time, the deed of sale
D could not have been executed without obtaining such permission ;..
and even on that score, the plaintiff appellant cannot derive any "'
advantage to establish that she had been ready and willing to
perform her part of the contract.
The learned Judge was of the opinion that as no leave
E was obtained by the plaintiff-appellant in terms of Order VIII

-
Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to file subsequent written
statement wherein, inter alia, it was alleged that defendant Nos.5
and 6 were subsequent purchasers with notice of the earlier
""·
agreement, no cognizance thereof should have been taken and,
F thus, the trial court must be said to have committed an error in
considerin9 the same. It was furthermore opined that the trial
Court cornmitted an error in concluding that there had been a
collusion between the first defendant, 6tn defendant and Bahadur
Hussain as would appear from the fact that neither PW1 nor
G PW3 who examined themselves to support the case of the ~~,I
>--
pla.intiff made any statement in that behalf nor was there any
pl@adin9 in the plaint to that effect.
It was furthermore opined that as the said defendants were
H in possession of the property which would amount to a notice
AZHAR SULTANA V. B. RAJAMANI & ORS. 545
[S.S. SINHA J.]
... ~
within the meaning of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, A
the plaintiff would be deemed to have knowledge thereabout.
As regards the second point, the High Court opined that
having regard to Section 19(b) of the Act, the plaintiff could not
be granted specific performance of the contract as against the
said respondent who was a subsequent bona fide purchaser B
~ for value and without notice in as muct;i as DW1 categorically
:I
stated that defendant No.1 had no knowledge of the said
.
agreement for sale.
So far as the third point which fell for determination of the c
learned Judge of the High Court is concerned, it was held that
th
as the 6 defendant had purchased the property as far back as
on 31.10.1981 and had been in possession enjoyment thereof

- ,.
for more than 30 years, it was not a case where the discretionary
jurisdiction in terms of Section 20 of the Act should be exercised
in her favour.
10. Mr. Uday .U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing
D

on behalf of the appellant, in support of this appeal would urge :
1) It was not necessary for the plaintiff to examine herself
as her husband who was her General Power of E

... Attorney holder was examined and particularly having
regard to Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act.
...
2) For the purpose of establishing the plea of readiness
and willingness on the part of the vendee, it was not F
. necessary to prove that she had enough liquid cash
in her hand inasmuch as for the said purpose it would
be sufficient to show that she could arrange such an
amount for payment of consideration at the
......,
-.... 4
3)
appropriate stage .

Collusion by and between Shri Khanna and
G-

Defendant Nos.5 and 6 i$ evident from the fact that
the deed of sale was executed three years ~ft~r the
execution of the agreement for sale only for a sum of
Rs.48,000/- although the amount of consideration H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 2 S.C.R.

-~-..
A on the basis of the agreement for sale dated
4.12.1978 would have come to Rs.65,000/- and out
of which a sum of Rs.35,000/- had already been paid.
4) Defendant Nos.5 and 6 prior to their purchase of the
lands in suit having not made any enquiry nor having
B issued any public notice, the onus of proof that they
were bona 'fide purchasers for v·alue and without
notice, was on them.
5) The approach to the entire case on the part of the
c High Court was wrong as would appear from the fact
that although the subsequent pleadings were held to
be irrelevant, the statements made in paragraph 9
thereof were relied upon by the High Court for the
purpose of showing that the statements made in
paragraphs 5 and 6 of the written statement had not
D been adverted to and, thus, would be deemed· ·to "'
have been admitted, which even otherwise would
amount to misreading and misinterpretation of para
nine of the rejoinder.

E 11. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, urged:
,/-
1) Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances
of this case, it Is not a fit case where this Court should ..
exercise its jurisdiction under Section 20 of the
F Specific Relief Act and in particular the fact that the t.
respondent had been living in the premises since
1981.
2) Reasons for payment of a lower amount of
JI
consideration in respect of the suit premises must
G
be considered as Shri Khanna had already lost his ~
... "
suit in respect of the property to Bahadur Hussain
and it was only because of the· .intervention of the
Sc:lid r13spondents, Shri Khanna could execute the
(;lforementioned deed of sale.
H
AZHAR SULTANA V. B. RAJAMANI & ORS. 547
[S.S. SINHA J.]

3) Since the agreement for sale dated 4.12 .1978 itself A
~- ·~
stipulates that in the event any defect in title is found,
the vendee was only entitled to obtain refund of the
entire amount of consideration, a decree for specific
performance of contract could not have been granted
to the appellant. B
4) Readiness and willingness on the part of a vendee
must be judged from the entire backdrop of events
1
~
upon taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiff
did not issue any notice and/or filed any suit for a a
period of three years wherefrom it would be evident c
that he was not at all material times ready and willing
to perform his part of contract.
12. Execution of the agreement and/or genuineness thereof
is not in question. Plaintiff indisputably in view of Section 16(c)
D
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was required to make requisite
)(
averments that she had all along been and still is ready and
willing to perform her part of the contract and also establish the
same. Shri Khanna in his written statement took a specific
defence that as the property was in litigation, plaintiff developed
cold feet and did not evince any interest to complete the sale E

..-
·..,

~
transaction by paying the balance of sale consideration. Even
after selling the property, allegedly, the plaintiff's representative
was asked to take back the amount of Rs.30,000/-.

13. We would, at this stage, notice the averments made in F
the said agreement for sale dated 4.12.1978 :

"(i) That after obtaining the permission from Celing
Officer, I shall ex(~cute registration in favour of the
Purchaser within 2 months. It shall be my responsibility
to obtain the permission from the Ceiling Office. G
(ii) That the sale property is free of all private and public
charges and dues. If any detected, I shall be
responsible to clear the same. If any defect in title is
found, the entire advance money shall be returned.
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A (iii) That at the time of the registration, I shall hand over
the possession of the entire property to the purchaser.
The expenses of the Registration shall be borne by
the purchaser."
14. Indisputably, Khanna filed an application for grant of
8 approval for sale of the premises in question. It was necessary,
as only in 1981, the said provision was declared ultra vires. In
view of the fact that approval was required to be obtained from
the competent authority, the plaintiff could not have proceeded
on the assumption that the suit could be filed within a period of
C three years from the date of refusal on the part of the original
defendant to execute the said deed of sale in terms of the
agreement.
15. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 were in possession of the
properties. The deed of sale was a registered one. Plaintiff,
0
therefore, must be deemed to have notice thereof in terms of
Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. She, however, neither
in her notice nor in her plaint raised any question with regard to
the bona fide or otherwise of the transaction of sale entered
into by and between Shri Khanna and the respondent Nos.5
E and 6. Prior to execution of the said deed of sale dated
30.10.1981, the suit filed by Khanna against Bahadur Hussain
was dismissed by the appellate court by a judgment and decree
dated 30.11.1978. There does not appear to be any reason as
to why the plaintiff cannot be said to have been not aware thereof.
F It was, therefore, expected that not only the subsequent
purchasers but also Bahadur Hussain be impleaded as parties
in the suit. It is of some significance to notice that replication to
the said written statement was filed wherefor no leave was ~-

obtained.
G
16. Indisputably again, although the written statement was
filed by Shri Khanna on 30.8.1983, defendant Nos.5 and 6 were·
impleaded as parties only in the year 1987. It is for the first time
in the replication, the plaintiff alleged that there had been a
collusion by and between Khanna and Bahadur Hussain.
H
AZHAR SULTANA V. B. RAJAMANI & ORS. 549
~'
[S.B. SINHA J.]

. ~
Bahadur Hussain, however, was not impleaded as a party. A
Replication was filed in 1991. Such a contention has been
raised only in 1991 which was impermissible in law.
17. It may be true that the name of the purchaser was not
disclosed but then it was open to the plaintiff to ask for other
and better particulars of the said statements. Why she had to 8
wait for a period of more than three years for impeading the
subsequent purchasers as parties has not been explained. Even
.. 1'
-
an application for injunction was filed only in September 1985.
According to her husband, she came to learn about the sale of
property in the name of defendant No.5 only on 29.9.1986. Why c
an inquiry was not made in the Registration Office although the
deed of sale was a registered one again defies anybody's
comprehension. Readiness and willingness on the ·part of the
plaintiff, therefore, is required to be considered from the
aforementioned backdrop of events. D
~
18. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 postulates
continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff.
It is a condition precedent for obtaining a relief of grant of
specific performance of contract. The court, keeping in view
the fact that it exercises a discretionary jurisdiction, would be E
entitled to take into consideration as to whether the suit had
' been filed within a reasonable time. What would be a
•/' reasonable time would, however, depend upon the facts and
~
circumstances of each case. No hard and fast law can be laid
down therefor. F

The conduct of the parties in this behalf would also assume
significance.
In Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal [(2002) 1 SCC 134] it
was observed : G
~ .....
.j
"11. When, concededly, the time was· not of the essence
of the contract, the appellant-plaintiff was required to
approach the court of law within a reasonable time. A
Constitution Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Chand Rani v.
H
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A Kamal Rani held that in case of sale of immovable property
· · there is no presumption as to time being of the essence
of the contract. Even if it is not of the essence of contract, ._
the court may infer that it is to be performed in a reasonable '
time if the conditions are (1) from the express terms of the
B contract; (i1) from the nature of the property; and (iii) from
the surrounding circumstances, for example, the object of
making the contract. For the purposes of granting relief,

c
the reasonable time has to be ascertained from all the
facts ·and circumstances of the case." . ·:

It was furthermore observed :
"13. The_ word "reasonable" has in law prima facie meaning
of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which
the person concerned is called upon to act reasonably ._·I __

knows or ought to know as to what was reasonable. It may '
D 1
be unreasonable to give an exact definition of the word ,..:.
"reasonable". The reason varies in its conclusion according ) I

to idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and
circumstances in which he thinks. The dictionary meaning·

E
of the "reasonable time" is to be so much time as is
necessary, under the circumstances, to do conveniently i
what the contract or duty requires should be done in a r-
particular case. In other words it means, as soon as
circumstances permit. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's The Law
,, ,.-

Lexicon it is defined to mean: ~ ·'
F .,__
'A reasonable time, looking at all the circumstances of the ,,
case; a reasonable time under ordinary circumstances; .
,,

as soon as circumstances will permit; so much time as is
necessary under the circumstances, conveniently to do
r
I

what the contract requires should be done; some more
G
protracted space than 'directly'; such length of time as f._
~
may fairly, and properly, and reasonably be allowed or .,. .... t---
required, having regard to the nature of the act or duty and
to the attending circumstances; all these convey more or
less the same idea.' "
f
i
H ~
AZHAR SULTANA V. 8. RAJAMANI & ORS. 551
[S.S. SINHA J.]

<II ..
19. It is also a well settled principle of law that not only the A
original vendor but also ei subsequent purchaser would be
entitled to raise a contention that the plaintiff was not ready and
willing to perform his part of contract. [See Ram Awadh (Dead)
by LRs. & Ors. v. Achhaibar Dubey & Anr. [(2000) 2 SCC 428
para 6] B
20. We are, however, in agreement with Mr. Lalit that for
-,.
the aforementioned purpose it was not necessary that the entire
~
amount of consideration should be kept ready and the plaintiff
must file proof in respect thereof. It may also be correct to
contend that only because the plaintiff who is a Muslim lady, did c
not examine herself and got examined on her behalf, her
husband, the same by itself would lead to a conclusion that she
was not ready and willing to perform her part of contract.

21. If the plaintiff has failed to establish that she had all
D
along been ready and willing to perform her part of contract, in
J<
our opinion, it would not be necessary to enter into the question
as to whether the defendant Nos.5 and 6 were bona fide
subsequent purchasers for value without notice or not.
22. Furthermore, grant of decree for specific performance E
of contract is discretionary. The contesting respondents herein
are living in the property since 1981 in their own right. There is
• absolutely no reason as to why they should be forced to vacate
the said property at this juncture.
"
23. The plaintiff herself has taken a positive plea that there F
had been a coll11sion between Khanna and Bahadur Hussain.
Such a case has neither been pleaded nor proved. No issue in
this behalf was framed. Even otherwise, the question of the
defendant's discharging the burden would arise provided the
plaintiff is found to be entitled to a decree for specific G
*...., ,J
performance of contract.

24. We, however, agree with Mr. Lalit that the conduct of
the respondent was not good but, similarly, we cannot lose sight
of the conduct of the appellants as well. She had also not brought H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. ,.
t
A any evidence to show that she did not have the notice of the
said deed of sale.
We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice
would be subserved if this Court refuses to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 20 of the Act,
8 directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the plaintiff
which sum would include the amount of advance paid by her.
25. The appeal is disposed of. In the facts and
circumstances of this case, however, there shall be no order as
.c to costs.

G.N. Appeal disposed of.

<
1

.
•

r'

~
.... •