http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4315  of  1991

PETITIONER: MOTILAL JAIN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT.RAMDASI DEVI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/07/2000

BENCH: S.V.Patil, S.S.M.Quadri

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     J  U  D G M E N T SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.   This appeal,  by special leave, is directed against the  judgment of  the Gauhati High Court (Assam) in First Appeal No.43  of 1981 passed on October 22, 1990.  The plaintiff in the suit, out  of  which this appeal arises, is the appellant and  the respondents  are  legal representatives of the  defendant  - Ambika Prasad Ram.  Hereinafter the parties will be referred to  as  the plaintiff and the defendant.  The  plaintiff entered  into a contract with the defendant to purchase  the suit  property  for  a consideration of Rs.25,000/-  out  of which  a  sum  of Rs.17,000/- was paid at the  time  of  the execution of the contract on February 20, 1977 (Ext.2);  the balance  of the consideration, Rs.8000/-, was stipulated  to be  paid  within five months from the date of Ext.2, at  the time  of execution of registered sale deed in favour of  the plaintiff.   Alleging  that  the defendant  was  evading  to receive the balance amount of Rs.8000/- and execute the sale deed,  the  plaintiff sent notices through his  advocate  on March  15, 1978 (Ext.5), and again on April 4, 1978  (Ext.3) and  finally  on November 26, 1978 (Ext.4).   The  plaintiff then  filed  the  suit,  T.S.No.36   of  1979,  against  the defendant  in  the court of the Assistant District Judge  of Goalpara  at  Dhubri,  praying  for  a  decree  of  specific performance  of  contract  for  sale of  the  suit  property (Ext.1) and claimed in the alternative damages in the sum of Rs.38,000/-  on  August 10, 1979.  The defendant denied  the execution   of  Ext.2,  receipt  of  Rs.17,000/-   as   part consideration  thereunder, his signature on it and submitted that,  therefore,  the question of avoiding to  execute  the sale  deed  would not arise.  He pleaded that the  appellant was entitled to neither the specific performance of contract nor  the damages, the alternative claim.  On considering the evidence produced by the parties, the trial court found that the  defendant  executed  Ext.2  and decreed  the  suit  for specific  performance  of  Ext.2  on  July  25,  1981.   The defendant  filed  First  Appeal No.43 of  1981  against  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

judgment  of  the  trial  court in the  Gauhati  High  Court (Assam).   During  the  pendency  of  the  appeal  the  said defendant died and the respondents were brought on record as his  legal  representatives.  The High Court  confirmed  the finding of the trial court that the defendant executed Ext.2 but  noted:  (i) that the suit was filed after two years  of the  accrual  of  the cause of action on July 21,  1977  and after  about one year of last notice issued on November  26, 1978  (Ext.4);   (ii)  from the averment in the  plaint  the readiness  and willingness could not be inferred;  and (iii) even  assuming that the averment made out the readiness  and willingness,  there  was no evidence to prove the  readiness and  willingness  of  the plaintiff.  In that  view  of  the matter,  by the impugned judgment, the High Court set  aside the  judgment  of the trial court with regard to  relief  of specific  performance of the contract (Ext.2) but granted  a decree  for compensation in a sum of Rs.22,094/-(Rs.17,000/-

counsel  for     of   the findings         of      of  the such     delay   of  as Ext.2.   He      of  brought to       show    of   readiness perform  his     of  part with     the     of   requirements Relief   Act,    of  1963, of      Appendix         of  A decision         of      of   this Vs.              of  Chuni 1971     SC      of  1238] Judges  Bench    of  in [1999    (6)     of   SCC judgment         of      of   the Jain     (PW     of  1) in       proof   of  of Mr.N.R.          of  Choudhary, contended        that    of  paras to       Forms   of   47 Civil    Procedure       of  and in       Ouseph  of   Varghese 539]    and      of  Abdul 1990     SC      of  682). framed   an      of  issue appellant        but     of  it the     trial    of  court further  contended       of   that wife     is      of   the existence        Ext.2   of  which justify  granting        of   of performance      and     of  the Here,    the     of   short the      High    of   Court which   the      of  High suit.            of  It of               of  delay performance     of       of  contract Delay    running         of   beyond Limitation       Act;    of   (ii) is       within  of  the the     third    of  parties of       suit;   of delay    may     of  give be       inequitable     of  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

of               of  the factually        also,   of   the assumption       with    of   regard executed        on       of  February to       be      of  executed was      issued  of  on was      filed   of  only year     as      of  noted this     case    of   the relief   to      of  the favour   from    of  the show    that     of  the part    of       of  the record   to      of  prove placing reliance         of  on In       that    of   case, sale    of       of  the oral     agreement       of  and to       which   of  the subsequent       pleading        of   and Court    pointed         of  out should   conform         of  to the      Code    of   of Abdul    Khaders         of  case struck   by      of   this case    A        of  agreed was      not     of   having Government       nor     of   was however,         received        of   earnest for      sale    of   which would   be       of  paid the     registered       of  sale obligation       to      of   obtain Government       before  of  the not      take    of   any Government.              of  A the      contract        of   for was      that    of  A of       the     of   contract. willingness     could    of  not and     that     of  had circumstances    relevant        of  to party    concerned.      of material         to      of   show willing  to      of  perform have     the     of   necessary would    be      of  executed entitled         to      of  a That     decision        of   was this     Court   of  in held     that    of  in keep     in      of   mind science  but     of   an law      of      of  ones India    most    of   of they     inevitably      of   differ gather   true    of   spirit whole    and     of   to obligations,     one     of   has plea.            of  It requires         a       of  plea any      form.   of   No to       take    of  such Specific         Relief  of   Act, phraseology      but     of   only

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

has      performed       of  or his      part    of  of and      willingness     of  has in       letter  of   and readiness                of  and mathematical    formula  of  which If       the     of   averments indicate         the     of  readiness fulfil   his     of  part is       subject-        of   matter differently      worded  of  will and      willingness     of   of performance      of      of   contract perusal  of      of  paras the      readiness       of   and obligation       which   of   he balance  of      of   consideration. the      defendant       of   to Rs.8000/-        and     of  execute Patna    (Bihar)         of  at to       his     of  place support  of      of  his Special Leave Petition (crl.)            of  The consideration    at      of  the no       reason  of   why consideration   of       of  Rs.8,000/- his      favour.         of   We that     the     of   conduct relief   of      of   specific Mr.Choudhary             of  that compensation     in      of   lieu disentitled      to      of   claim contract,        is      of   to claim   was      of  in Specific         Relief  of   Act, claims   damages         of   in contract        as       of  alternative not      entitled        of  to contract         itself.         of Court    is      of   sustainable judgment         and     of  decree judgment         of      of   the accordingly      we      of  do the      trial   of   court. deposited        the     of   balance judgment                 of  and representatives  of      of   the ordered  to      of  execute within  three    of  months plaintiff        is      of   entitled defendant/respondents.  to       of   receive         to       of   receive