Specific Performance Denied Due to Inaction: Supreme Court Reaffirms Law on Readiness & Willingness in Pydi Ramana @ Ramulu v. Davarasety Manmadha Rao
Specific Performance Denied Due to Inaction: Supreme Court Reaffirms Law on Readiness & Willingness
Case Title: Pydi Ramana @ Ramulu v. Davarasety Manmadha Rao
Citation: 2024 INSC 507 | Civil Appeal No. 434 of 2013
Date of Judgment: 10 July 2024
Bench: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar
Background of the Case
The respondent-plaintiff had sought specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 07.06.1993, under which the appellant-defendant agreed to sell 1.38 acres of land at Rs.705/- per cent. The plaintiff had paid advance amounts on two occasions and claimed the defendant failed to execute the sale deed even after legal notice. The trial court rejected specific performance but ordered a refund. The appellate courts reversed this and granted specific performance, prompting the present appeal.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
-
The Court re-emphasized the mandatory requirement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for the plaintiff to aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness.
-
Plaintiff's silence for nearly 3 years after agreement (1993) and issuing legal notice only in May 1996, followed by filing the suit in June 1997, was held to be unexplained and indicative of lack of readiness and willingness.
-
The trial court’s findings were upheld as legally sound, whereas the appellate decisions were found to be contrary to evidence.
Key Legal Precedents Referred
-
Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha [(2010) 10 SCC 512] – On the distinction between readiness (financial ability) and willingness (conduct).
-
Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd. [(2023) 1 SCC 355] – Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 is prospective and not applicable to pre-2018 contracts.
-
U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy – Long inaction disentitles equitable relief.
-
Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar [2024 SCC Online SC 981] – Delay close to limitation end weakens specific performance claims.
Court’s Final Ruling
-
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the trial court’s judgment.
-
Specific performance was denied, and only refund of advance amount was permitted.
-
High Court and appellate court orders were set aside.
Conclusion
This judgment is a significant reaffirmation of the principle that specific performance is an equitable remedy, not a matter of right. Plaintiffs must not only plead but also actively demonstrate diligence and sincerity in pursuing contractual obligations.
Comments
Post a Comment