Mehboob-Ur-Rehman (Dead) Through LRs. v. Ahsanul Ghani
Background
The plaintiff (later represented by his legal heirs after his death) sued for specific performance of a 1975 agreement to sell a house in Kanpur, claiming the defendant had agreed to sell it for Rs. 30,000 and received Rs. 15,000 as earnest money but later refused to execute the sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit in the plaintiff's favour, but the first appellate court reversed this, holding the plaintiff had never properly pleaded or proved that he was continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and the Allahabad High Court upheld that reversal in second appeal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a plaintiff seeking specific performance must specifically aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the contract: a requirement that is not a mere formality and cannot be fixed by belated amendment of the plaint at the appellate stage. Examining the plaint and the plaintiff's own testimony, the Court found no genuine averment or proof of such readiness and willingness, so the suit was bound to fail on this ground alone regardless of the defendant's conduct. The Court also upheld the rejection of the plaintiff's late application to amend the plaint and agreed that the High Court was right not to entertain an unformulated substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
Anyone suing for specific performance of a contract (e.g., an agreement to sell property) must explicitly plead and prove, from the very start of the case, that they have always been ready and willing to fulfil their own obligations, failing to do so, or trying to fix the gap only years later through a late amendment, can be fatal to the claim even if the underlying agreement is genuine.