The High Court finds failure in proving continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract as per the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Mini Pushkarna, has upheld the decision of the Trial Court which dismissed the suit filed by Chander Pal Singh seeking specific performance of a property sale agreement with Kamlesh Nagpal. The appellant, Chander Pal Singh, had originally filed the suit for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated June 19, 2008, concerning a property in Gobind Park, Delhi, but was denied relief due to his inability to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations.
The Court highlighted that under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract from the date of execution until the decree. The judgment emphasized that mere transient readiness or isolated instances of willingness are insufficient. In Singh's case, the court found that there was a lack of sufficient financial evidence to demonstrate continuous readiness to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 35.5 Lacs, as required by the agreement.
The Court examined the cheques presented by Singh, which were issued by third parties and found that the accounts did not maintain sufficient funds to honor these cheques during their validity. Furthermore, the cheques being account-payee and not banker's cheques could not be encashed on the stipulated date as per banking norms, indicating a lack of readiness.
Additionally, the appellant's complaint to the police seeking a return of his money instead of completion of the transaction indicated a lack of willingness to perform the contract. The Court held that such conduct was inconsistent with an intention to fulfill the contractual obligations.
The High Court also addressed the issue of earnest money, noting that the respondent had already refunded Rs. 10 Lacs received as part payment, and as per the respondent's statement, the remaining earnest money of Rs. 10 Lacs would also be refunded to the appellant.
The Court rejected the appellant's application to introduce additional bank account statements as evidence, citing that they did not have a direct bearing on the judgment since the appellant failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness throughout the proceedings.
Bottom line:-
Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person who fails to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
Statutory provision(s): Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 16(c), Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XLI Rule 27
Chander Pal Singh v. Kamlesh Nagpal, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2943765
