http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  418 of 2001

PETITIONER: M.M.S.Investments, Madurai and Ors

RESPONDENT: V. Veerappan and Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/04/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(With Civil Appeal No. 419 of 2001)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

C.A.No. 418 of 2001

       This appeal is directed against the judgment of the  Madras High Court. Letters Patent Appeal was filed  questioning correctness of the order passed by a learned  Single Judge in A.S.No. 796/1987 dated 2.11.1999. The order  was passed on a preliminary objection raised by the  respondents in the appeal.

       Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

       O.S.No.247 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai  was filed by Veerappan, the first respondent for specific  performance of an agreement for sale dated 23.1.1978.  Respondents 2 to 9 were impleaded in the suit as owners of  the property and it was alleged that the owners had entered  into an agreement with him and as the agreement was not  complied with, the suit was filed. After the decree was passed  by the trial Court, the defendants through their power of  attorney sold large extent of properties including the subject  matter of the suit in favour of certain other persons who are  the present appellants. In the mean time, defendants 1 to 5  filed appeal in A.S. No. 796 of 1987 before the High Court  against the Judgment and decree in O.S. No. 247 of 1981 and  the appellants herein being subsequent purchasers filed  C.M.P. 3707 of 1989 to implead themselves as appellants 6 to  9 in the appeal on the ground that original appellants 1 to 5,  the erstwhile owners, were trying to collude with the first  respondent. Appellants 1 to 5 filed C.M.P. No. 4388 of 1990 to  withdraw their power of attorney in favour of one Chakrapani  and Sethuraman. A learned Single Judge of the High Court  dismissed C.M.P. No. 3707 of 1989 filed by the appellants  herein seeking impleadment and allowed C.M.P. No. 4388 of  1990 by order dated 28.6.1990. The appellants filed L.P.A. No.  113 of 1990 against the order of dismissal of C.M.P. No 3707  of 1989 and also sought for leave to file an appeal against the  order allowing C.M.P. No. 4388 of 1990. Both the L.P.A. and  C.M.P. No.9570 of 1990 seeking leave to appeal were disposed  of by a common order dated 28.3.1990. L.P.A. 113 of 1990  was allowed and with the result the appellants were impleaded  as appellants 6 to 9 in the appeal and A.S. No.796 of 1987 was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

also directed to be disposed on merits.  

       The High Court after analyzing the rival submissions  came to hold as follows:

       "Therefore, we are inclined to hold that having  regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,  there is no bar for the appellants to raise any issue  on the merits of the appeal for consideration in the  appeal except the defence of readiness and  willingness as provided under Section 16 (c) of the  Specific Relief Act, 1963.  

       In the result, the appeal is ordered  accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected  C.M.P. is dismissed."   

                                       (underlined for emphasis)

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the plea  relating to readiness and willingness can be raised in a suit for  specific performance of contract.  Strong reliance is placed on a  decision of this Court in  Ram Awadh (dead) by Lrs. And ors. v.  Achhaibar Dubey and Anr. (2000 (2) SCC 428). Learned counsel  for the appellants, therefore, has submitted that the High Court  was not justified in its view.  

       Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand  supported the judgment of the High Court.  

       Questioning the plea of readiness and willingness is a  concept relatable to an agreement. After conveyance the  question of readiness and willingness is really not relevant.   Therefore, the provision of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short  the ’Act’) is not applicable.  It is to be noted that the decision in  Ram Awadh’s case (supra) relates to a case where there was  only an agreement.  After the conveyance, the only question to  be adjudicated is whether the purchaser was a bona fide  purchaser for value without notice.  In the present case the only  issue that can be adjudicated is whether the appellants were  bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The question  whether the appellants were ready and willing is really of no  consequence.  In Ram Awadh’s case (supra) the question of the  effect of a completed sale was not there. Therefore, that decision  cannot have any application so far as the present case is  concerned. Once there is a conveyance the concept would be  different and the primary relief could be only cancellation.     

       Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since  the purchasers step into the shoes of the vendor, the question  of readiness and willingness can be pressed into service. This  plea is clearly without substance because the purchasers had  to prove that they are bona fide purchasers for value without  notice.  The readiness and willingness aspect will not give any  relief to them. That being the position, the appeal is sans merit  and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.  

C.A. No. 419 of 2001

       In view of the dismissal of C.A.No.418 of 2001, no order  needs to be passed in this appeal.