R. SHAMA NAIKversusG. SRINIVASIAH

         [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1325 : 2024 INSC 927

                        R. Shama Naik
                              v.
                        G. Srinivasiah
     (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13933 of 2021)
                      28 November 2024
       [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]


                    Issue for Consideration
Whether plaintiff failed to establish that he was always ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract.

                           Headnotes†
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.16(c) – Petitioner-original plaintiff
instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based
on agreement to sale dated 03.03.2005 – It is the case of the
petitioner that he was always ready and willing to perform
his part of the contract – The trial court allowed the suit and
passed a decree for specific performance – However, the
High Court held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that
he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract – Interference required or not:
Held: Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (prior to
amendment w.e.f. 1.10.2018) bars the relief of the specific
performance of a contract in favour of a person who fails to aver
readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract –
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 – There is a fine distinction between readiness and willingness
to perform the contract – Both the ingredients are necessary
for the relief of specific performance – While readiness means
the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which would
include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct
of the plaintiff – The High Court in first appeal upon appreciation
of the evidence on record both oral and documentary has arrived
at the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he
1326                                                         [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


     was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract –
     This being a finding of fact and cannot be termed as perverse,
     there is no good reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
     [Paras 8, 10, 12, 13, 14]

                                 List of Acts
     Specific Relief Act, 1963

                             List of Keywords
     Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963; Readiness and willingness
     to perform his part of the contract; Availability of funds; Oral and
     documentary evidence.

                            Case Arising From
     EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
     Petition (Civil) No. 13933 of 2021
     From the Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2021 of the High Court
     of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RFA No. 1017 of 2013

                         Appearances for Parties
     Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, Girish Ananthamurthy, Advs. for the
     Petitioner.
     Manjunath Meled, Sandeep Sharma, Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Udapudi,
     Ganesh Kumar R., Advs. for the Respondent.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Order

1.   This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High
     Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Regular First Appeal No. 1017
     of 2013 dated 01-07-2021 by which the Regular First Appeal filed
     by the original defendant came to be allowed thereby quashing and
     setting aside the judgment and decree of specific performance passed
     by the trial court in favour of the petitioner herein-original plaintiff.
2.   It appears that the petitioner herein original plaintiff instituted a suit
     for specific performance of contract based on agreement of sale
     dated 3rd March 2005.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                       1327

                     R. Shama Naik v. G. Srinivasiah


3.   The total sale consideration fixed in the Agreement of sale is
     Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lakh only). Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees
     Twelve lakh fifty thousand only) came to be paid by the petitioner
     herein towards earnest money at the time of execution of the
     agreement of sale.
4.   It is the case of the petitioner that he was always ready and willing
     to perform his part of the contract but it is the respondent herein
     original-defendant who was not inclined to execute the sale deed
     despite accepting the amount of Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve
     lakh fifty thousand only) towards earnest money.
5.   In such circumstances, referred to above, the petitioner herein
     instituted Original Suit No.1101 of 2008 praying for a relief of specific
     performance or in the alternative for refund of the earnest money.
6.   The trial court allowed the suit and passed a decree for specific
     performance. The defendant went in appeal before the High Court.
     The High Court allowed the appeal of the defendant on the issue of
     readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in performing
     his part of the contract.
7.   We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
     have also perused the materials on record.
8.   Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (prior to amendment
     w.e.f. 1.10.2018) bars the relief of the specific performance of
     a contract in favour of a person who fails to aver readiness and
     willingness to perform his part of the contract.
9.   There is a legion of precedents on the subject of readiness and
     willingness.
10. 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.
11. There is a fine distinction between readiness and willingness to
    perform the contract. Both the ingredients are necessary for the
    relief of specific performance.
12. While readiness means the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the
    contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates
    to the conduct of the plaintiff.
1328                                                     [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


13. The High Court in first appeal upon appreciation of the evidence
    on record both oral and documentary has arrived at the conclusion
    that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was always ready and
    willing to perform his part of the contract.
14. This being a finding of fact and cannot be termed as perverse, there
    is no good reason for us to interfere with the impugned judgment.
15. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Petition dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan