Jagjit Singh (Dead) Through LRs v. Amarjit Singh
Background
The plaintiff (respondent) sued for specific performance of an agreement to sell a half-share in a shop, claiming he had paid most of the sale price in 2000 with the balance and registration due later. The defendant (appellant) denied any such agreement existed. The trial court dismissed the suit; the first appellate court, while accepting the agreement existed, still dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The High Court, in second appeal, reversed this and allowed the suit without framing any substantial question of law.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in overturning a pure finding of fact in second appeal without framing any substantial question of law and without giving cogent reasons. It reiterated settled law under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract from the date of the agreement until the filing of the suit: merely sending a legal notice and filing suit shortly after the extended deadline does not establish this. Since the first appellate court's finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove such readiness and willingness was a sound factual finding based on evidence and law, the Supreme Court restored it. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the first appellate court's judgment was restored.
Lesson Learnt
A person seeking specific performance of a contract to sell property must affirmatively plead and prove, with evidence, that they were continuously ready and willing to fulfil their own obligations throughout the life of the agreement: simply having an agreement and eventually suing is not enough.