NDLI: Shenbagam & Ors. Vs. Kk Rathinavel

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Specific Relief Act: s.16
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Specific Relief Act: s.16 – Bars to the relief of specific performance – Held: s.16 provides certain bars to the relief of specific performance – These include, inter alia, a person who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ‘ready and willing’ to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented and waived by the defendant. Specific performance: Conduct of the parties – Generally in an agreement for sale of immovable property, time is not of the essence – In deciding whether to grant the remedy of specific performance, specifically in suits relating to sale of immovable property, the courts must be cognizant of the conduct of the parties, the escalation of the price of the suit property, and whether one party will unfairly benefit from the decree – The remedy provided must not cause injustice to a party, specifically when they are not at fault – In this case, three decades passed since the agreement to sell was entered into between the parties – The price of the suit property undoubtedly have escalated – In view of the blemished conduct of the respondent-plaintiff in indicating his willingness to perform the contract, grant of the remedy of specific performance of the contract is declined – However, the consideration together with interest at 6% per annum is ordered to be refunded.Specific performance: Willingness to perform the contract – The foundation of a suit for specific performance lies in ascertaining whether the plaintiff has come to the court with clean hands and has, through his conduct, demonstrated that he has always been willing to perform the contract – There is a conspicuous absence in judgment of the trial court of any reference to evidence led by the respondent to indicate his willingness to perform the contract – Trial court merely adverted to “document produced on behalf of the plaintiff” and concluded that he had sufficient means to purchase the suit property – Apart from this observation, trial court did not analyse the terms of the agreement, the obligations of the parties and the conduct of the parties – Plaintiff withdrew the balance consideration deposited by him before the trial court in 2001 – The inconsistency in his conduct, lack of communication with the defendants urging them to discharge the mortgage and in showing his willingness to pay the balance consideration, and delay of about three years from the date fixed for performance of the contract in filing a suit, are all indicative of the plaintiff ’s lack of will to perform the contract.Specific performance: Burden to prove readiness and willingness to perform contract – Held: The terms of the agreement stipulated that the plaintiff was to pay the balance consideration within a period of six months and “on receipt of the balance consideration”, the defendants were to execute the sale deed “pertaining to the property free from all encumbrances” – It is evident that plaintiff was required to pay the remaining consideration (or indicate his willingness to pay) and only then could have sought specific performance of the contract – Plea of plaintiff that an additional amount of Rs. 10,000 was paid to the defendants to discharge the mortgage – However, the acknowledgment signed by the defendants indicated that the money was to meet urgent family expenses – Since no further details have been provided and no evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff, it cannot be concluded that the money was for discharge of the mortgage – Even assuming that the plaintiff is correct, the agreement still required the plaintiff to pay the balance consideration – The agreement clearly provided that the balance consideration would be paid and then the sale deed would be executed – How the defendant chose to discharge the mortgage was for them to decide – It is an established principle of law that the plaintiff must prove that he is ready and willing to perform the contract – Burden lies on the plaintiff – Plaintiff has not led any evidence that he was ready or willing to perform his obligations under the agreement.Specific performance: In evaluating whether the respondent was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the contract, it is not only necessary to view whether he had the financial capacity to pay the balance consideration, but also assess his conduct throughout the transaction – Further, the payment of income tax by itself does not show that the plaintiff had sufficient resources to pay for the suit property. Specific Relief Act: s.20 – Equitable relief – Discretion on court conferred under s.20 of the Act.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 75
Petitioner	Shenbagam & Ors.
Respondent	Kk Rathinavel
SCR	[2022] 1 S.C.R. 346
Judgement Date	2022-01-20
Case Number	150

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Shenbagam & Ors. Vs. Kk Rathinavel

Please Log-in to view this content

Gaddipati Divija & Anr. Vs. Pathuri Samrajyam & Ors.

Akkamma & Ors. Vs. Vemavathi & Ors.

Padmakumari & Ors. Vs. Dasayyan &ors.

Desh Raj & Ors. Vs. Rohtash Singh

Sukhbir Vs. Ajit Singh

Waheed Baig Vs. Sangi Lakshmamma & Ors.

Gauri Shankar Prasad and Ors Vs. Brahma Nand Singh

Most. Etwari Devi and Ors. Vs. Most. Parvati Devi

K.s. Vidyanadam and Ors. Vs. Vairavan

Shenbagam & Ors. Vs. Kk Rathinavel

Shenbagam & Ors. Vs. Kk Rathinavel

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Gaddipati Divija & Anr. Vs. Pathuri Samrajyam & Ors.

Akkamma & Ors. Vs. Vemavathi & Ors.

Padmakumari & Ors. Vs. Dasayyan &ors.

Desh Raj & Ors. Vs. Rohtash Singh

Sukhbir Vs. Ajit Singh

Waheed Baig Vs. Sangi Lakshmamma & Ors.

Gauri Shankar Prasad and Ors Vs. Brahma Nand Singh

Most. Etwari Devi and Ors. Vs. Most. Parvati Devi

K.s. Vidyanadam and Ors. Vs. Vairavan

Shenbagam & Ors. Vs. Kk Rathinavel