Holding

The pleadings and the Sub‑Registrar’s endorsement that the respondents attended the office to execute the deed satisfy the requirement of readiness and willingness under Section 16(1)(c), so the decree granting specific performance is upheld.

Summary

The first petitioner purchased land from the respondent under a 1975 sale deed that included a reconveyance agreement. The respondent sued for specific performance, alleging the petitioner refused to execute the sale deed despite the respondent’s readiness and attendance at the Sub‑Registrar’s office on 9 March 1977, which was recorded. The petitioner contended that the respondent had no ready money and that the suit did not comply with Forms 47/48 of the CPC and Section 16(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court granted specific performance, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the pleadings and the Sub‑Registrar’s endorsement sufficiently proved the respondent’s readiness and capacity to pay, satisfying the statutory requirement, and therefore dismissed the special leave petition, leaving the decree of specific performance intact.

Issues considered

Whether the plaintiff must expressly plead and prove that the defendant has ready money for execution of the sale deed under Section 16(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act and Forms 47/48 of the CPC.
Whether the lower courts erred in granting specific performance without such a pleading.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix AA (as amended by Allahabad High Court)
Specific Relief Act, 1963s. 16(1)(c)

Subjects

Specific performanceSpecific Relief ActSection 16(1)(c)Forms 47/48Readiness of moneySale deed executionCivil ProcedureSupreme Court

Judgment

SUKHBIR SINGH AND ORS. A
v.
BRU PAL SINGH AND ORS.

MAY 10, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Specific Reliefs Act, 1963/Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
S.16(1)(c)!Fonns 47 and 48 of Appendix AA (As amended by High Court of
Allahabad)-Suit for specific performance-Pleadings-Defendant-
appellant's argument that plaintiff-respondents had not pleaded that they had C
ready money for getting the sale deed executed-Held, not tenable-When the
respondents had pleaded and proved by Sub-Registrar's endorsement that they
were present in his office for having the sale deed executed and registered by
the petitioner it would be explicit that they were ready and willing to peifonn
their part of agreement-Courts below appropriately exercised their discretion
for granting the relief of specific peifonnance to the respondents on sound D
principles of law.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
·~ No. 11140 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 1.4.96 of the Allahabad High E
Court in S.A. No. 680 of 1995.

Manoj Swarup and Ms. Lalitha Kohli for the Petitioners.

Prashant Kumar, Ashish Dholakia and Sunil Ambwani for the
Respondents.
F

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This special leave petition arises from the order of the Allahabad
High Court dated April 1, 1996 passed in S.A. No. 680 of 1995.
G
The first petitioner is a purchaser from the respondent of the land
under registered sale deed dated March 10, 1975 with a contemporaneous
agreement of reconveyance to the respondent within a period of two years
from the said date. The first respondent laid suit for specific performance
pleading that despite his readiness and willingness the petitioner had H
863
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A avoided to sell back the property. He pleaded that despite his making
several requests to execute the sale deed on receiving sale consideration,
the petitioners went on assuring lo do the same but failed to execute the
sale deed. Ultimately when the petitioners had agreed to have the sale deed
executed and gel it registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Muzaf-
farnagar on March 9, 1977, the respondents kept waiting on that dale for
B the petitioners to come and execute the sale deed but the petitioners did
not turn up. On an application moved by the respondents of their presence,
the Sub-Registrar had entered their attendance in his office register on
March 9, 19i7. Though the respondents tried to reach out the petitioners
on March 10, 1977 the petitioners intentionally avoided to execute the sale
C deed in their favour. Consequently, their etforts to have the property
reconveyed failed. So, they laid the suit for specific performance of the
agreement. The petitioners pleaded that though they had executed agree-
ment of reconveyanee, the same was cancelled by another agreement dated
June 4, 1975, Ex. A-1. They also pleaded that they were always ready and
D willing to perform their part of the agreement. The respondents did not
have sufficient means lo pay the sale consideration of Rs. 47,600. The
respondent~ filed the ~uit only to blackn1ail the petitioner~. After framing
appropriate issues, adduction of evidence and on consideration thereof, the
trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the respondents had failed to
prove that they were willing to perform their part of the contract nor have
E they enough funds to repurchase the lands i,1 dispute. But on appeal, the
Additional District Judge in C.A. No. 72/1992 allowed and decreed the suit
on May 22, 1995 and decreed the suit and the second appeal came to be
dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order.

Shri Manoi Swamp, learned counsel for the petitioner contended
F
that the suit is not in conformity with forms 47 and 48 of Appendix AA of
the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) as amended by the High Court of
Allahabad. The respondents have not pleaded, as enjoined in Section 16(1)
(c) of the Specified Reliefs Act, 1963 (for short, the "Act") that the
respondents had ready money for getting the sale deed executed. The
G decrees of the appellate Court as well as of the High Court are, therefore,
bad in law. We find no force in the contentions.

In paragraphs 5, 9 and 10 of the plaint the respondents have in
substance pleaded that they had been and were still willing to perform their
H part of the agreement and the defendants did have notice in that behalf. It
SUKHBIRSINGHv, BRIJPALSINGH 865

is seen that averments made in the above paragraphs are in substance as A

•. per Forms 47 and 48 prescribed in Appendix AA of the Code as amended
by the High Court. What requires lo be considered is whether the essential
facts constituting the ingredients in Section 16(1)(c) of the Act were
pleaded and that found mentioned in the said Forms do in substance point
to those facts. The procedure is the hand-maid to the substantive rights of B
the parties. It would, therefore, be clear from a perusal of the .pleading and
the forms that the averments are consistent with the Forms. When the
respondents had pleaded and proved by the Sub-Registrar's endorsement
as per paper No. 41/C that the respondents were present in the office of
the Sub-Registrar for having the sale deed executed and registered by the
petitioners, it would be explicit that the respondents were ready and willing C
to perform their part of the agreement. The facts that the petitioners did
not attend the office would prove positively that the petitioners had
avoided execution of the sale deed.

- Law is not in doubt and it is not a condition that the respondents
should have ready cash with them. The fact that they attended tlie Sub- D
Registrar's office to have the sale deed executed and waited for the
petitioners lo attend the office of the Sub-Registrar is a positive fact to
prove that they had necessary funds to pass on consideration and had with
-- them the needed money with them for payment at the time of registration.
It is sufficient for the respondents to establish that they had the capacity E
to pay the sale consideration. It is not necessary that they should always
carry the money with them from the date of the suit till date of the decree.
It would, therefore, be clear that the courts below have appropriately
exercised their discretion for granting the relief of specific performance to
the respondents on sound principles of law.
F
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

R.P. Petition dismissed.