Introduction:

The Karnataka High Court recently ruled on the necessity of continuous readiness and willingness by the plaintiff as a condition precedent for granting specific performance. This ruling came in response to an appeal filed by Bylamurthy, who challenged the decisions of both the trial court and the first appellate court that had rejected his plea for specific performance. Justice H.P. Sandesh, sitting on a single-judge bench, emphasized that the plaintiff’s conduct and readiness to perform contractual obligations are crucial factors in such cases.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

Bylamurthy, the appellant, contended that he had entered into a sale agreement in 2003 with the father of M.G. Gangalakshmamma and others for a total sale consideration of ₹8,65,000, out of which he had paid ₹4,00,000 initially and an additional ₹1,00,000 on July 21, 2004. He argued that despite the father of the defendants passing away in 2005, the defendants, who succeeded the estate, were legally bound to execute the sale deed upon receiving the remaining balance.

The appellant further argued that a major portion of the sale amount had already been paid, making the issuance of notice unnecessary. He maintained that readiness and willingness should not be treated as a rigid formula and should be considered in light of the facts and circumstances, including the intention and conduct of both parties.

Defendants’ Arguments:

The respondents, represented by the heirs of the deceased executant, argued that the plaintiff had not demonstrated continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract between 2003 and 2008. They highlighted that no efforts were made by the plaintiff to execute the sale deed during this period, despite the executant’s death in 2005. They contended that the first notice for specific performance was only issued in 2008, indicating a lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff.

The trial court and the first appellate court had found that the plaintiff failed to comply with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, which mandates continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contractual obligations. The defendants argued that this non-compliance justified the rejection of the specific performance claim.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice H.P. Sandesh, while dismissing the appeal, upheld the lower courts’ findings. The bench emphasized that the court must consider the overall evidence and conduct of the parties when deciding on specific performance claims. The mere execution of a sale agreement does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to specific performance; the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness are critical factors.

The court noted, “Almost after five years of execution of the sale agreement dated 05.02.2003, notice was given on 17.06.2008, and a reply was given on 25.06.2008. Even after the death of the original executant of the sale agreement in the year 2005, no effort was made by the plaintiff between 2005 to 2008 until the issuance of notice.”

The bench held that the plaintiff had not placed any evidence on record to demonstrate his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract between 2003 and 2008. The court concluded that there was no error in the trial court and first appellate court’s decisions to decline the relief of specific performance.

Justice Sandesh stated, “The court has to take note of the conduct and nothing is placed on record that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract between 2003 to 2008 to make the balance payment of ₹3,65,000. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the trial court as well as the first appellate court in declining to grant the relief of specific performance.”

Findings: The court reiterated that when a suit for specific performance is filed, the plaintiff’s continuous readiness and willingness to fulfill contractual obligations are pivotal. The conduct of the parties during the relevant period must be scrutinized to determine entitlement to relief.

The court further observed that the issuance of a notice for specific performance after a significant delay indicates a lack of prompt action, which adversely affects the plaintiff’s claim. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely action and consistent conduct in seeking specific performance.