- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sukhbir Singh And Others v. Brij Pal Singh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The first petitioner purchased agricultural land from the respondent under a registered sale deed dated 10-3-1975, executing simultaneously an agreement to reconvey the land to the respondent within two years. Alleging that the petitioners evaded their obligation despite repeated requests, the respondent appeared before the Sub-Registrar at Muzaffarnagar on 9-3-1977 with the requisite consideration, but the petitioners did not attend. The Sub-Registrar recorded the respondent’s presence. When further efforts proved fruitless, the respondent filed a suit for specific performance.
The petitioners contended that a subsequent agreement dated 4-6-1975 cancelled the reconveyance arrangement and that the respondent lacked funds. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the respondent had not proved readiness and ability to pay. On appeal, the Additional District Judge (CA No. 72 of 1992) decreed specific performance on 22-5-1995. The High Court dismissed the petitioners’ second appeal (SA No. 680 of 1995) on 1-4-1996. The petitioners then filed the present Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the plaint complied with Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix AA of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Allahabad High Court.
- Whether the respondent’s pleadings satisfied the requirement under Section 16(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness, including financial capability, to perform the contract.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Arguments
- The suit did not conform to Forms 47 and 48 prescribed in Appendix AA of the CPC.
- The plaint lacked a specific averment that the respondent had ready money, as mandated by Section 16(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
- The decrees of the appellate court and the High Court were therefore legally unsustainable.
Respondent’s Position (as reflected in pleadings and findings)
- Pleadings in paragraphs 5, 9 and 10 of the plaint asserted continual readiness and willingness to perform the agreement.
- Attendance at the Sub-Registrar’s office on 9-3-1977 with funds demonstrated financial capacity and bona fide intent.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s averments in paragraphs 5, 9 and 10 of the plaint substantially conformed to the language of Forms 47 and 48 and therefore satisfied procedural requirements. The Court emphasised that procedural forms serve substantive rights and should be interpreted with that purpose in mind.
Regarding Section 16(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, the Court ruled that it is unnecessary for a plaintiff to physically possess or carry cash from the date of suit until decree. The crucial consideration is capacity and bona fide willingness. The respondent’s documented presence before the Sub-Registrar on 9-3-1977, supported by the endorsement at paper No. 41.C, was deemed positive evidence of readiness, willingness, and financial ability. Conversely, the petitioners’ absence established their avoidance of contractual obligations.
Finding that both the appellate court and the High Court had exercised discretion on sound legal principles, the Supreme Court refused to interfere.
Holding and Implications
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
As a result, the decree for specific performance granted by the Additional District Judge and affirmed by the Allahabad High Court stands, compelling the petitioners to reconvey the property to the respondent. The decision reaffirms established principles on pleadings and proof of readiness and willingness under Section 16(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act but does not create new precedent beyond endorsing existing doctrine.
Order
1. This special leave petition arises from the order of the Allahabad High Court dated 1-4-1996 passed in SA No. 680 of 1995.
2. The first petitioner is a purchaser from the respondent of the land under registered sale deed dated 10-3-1975 with a contemporaneous agreement of reconveyance to the respondent within a period of two years from the said date. The first respondent laid suit for specific performance pleading that despite his readiness and willingness the petitioner had avoided to sell back the property. He pleaded that despite his making several requests to execute the sale deed on receiving sale consideration, the petitioners went on assuring to do the same but failed to execute the sale deed. Ultimately, when the petitioners had agreed to have the sale deed executed and get it registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Muzaffarnagar on 9-3-1977, the respondents kept waiting on that date for the petitioners to come and execute the sale deed but the petitioners did not turn up. On an application moved by the respondents of their presence, the Sub-Registrar had entered their attendance in his office register on 9-3-1977. Though the respondents tried to reach out the petitioners on 10-3-1977 the petitioners intentionally avoided to execute the sale deed in their favour. Consequently, their efforts to have the property reconveyed failed. So, they laid the suit for specific performance of the agreement. The petitioners pleaded that though they had executed agreement of reconveyance, the same was cancelled by another agreement dated 4-6-1975, Ex. A-1. They also pleaded that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. The respondents did not have sufficient means to pay the sale consideration of Rs 47,600. The respondents filed the suit only to blackmail the petitioners. After framing appropriate issues, adduction of evidence and on consideration thereof, the trial court dismissed the suit holding that the respondents had failed to prove that they were willing to perform their part of the contract nor have they enough funds to repurchase the lands in dispute. But on appeal, the Additional District Judge in CA No. 72 of 1992 allowed and decreed the suit on 22-5-1995 and decreed the suit and the second appeal came to be dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order.
3. Shri Manoj Swarup, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the suit is not in conformity with Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix AA of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) as amended by the High Court of Allahabad. The respondents have not pleaded, as enjoined in Section 16(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) that the respondents had ready money for getting the sale deed executed. The decrees of the appellate court as well as of the High Court are, therefore, bad in law. We find no force in the contentions.
4. In paras 5, 9 and 10 of the plaint the respondents have in substance pleaded that they had been and were still willing to perform their part of the agreement and the defendants did have notice in that behalf. It is seen that averments made in the above paras are in substance as per Forms 47 and 48 prescribed in Appendix AA of the Code as amended by the High Court. What requires to be considered is whether the essential facts constituting the ingredients in Section 16(1)(c) of the Act were pleaded and that found mentioned in the said forms do in substance point to those facts. The procedure is the handmaid to the substantive rights of the parties. It would, therefore, be clear from a perusal of the pleadings and the forms that the averments are consistent with the forms. When the respondents had pleaded and proved by the Sub-Registrar's endorsement as per paper No. 41.C that the respondents were present in the office of the Sub-Registrar for having the sale deed executed and registered by the petitioners, it would be explicit that the respondents were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. The facts that the petitioners did not attend the office would prove positively that the petitioners had avoided execution of the sale deed.
5. Law is not in doubt and it is not a condition that the respondents should have ready cash with them. The fact that they attended the Sub-Registrar's office to have the sale deed executed and waited for the petitioners to attend the office of the Sub-Registrar is a positive fact to prove that they had necessary funds to pass on consideration and had with them the needed money with them for payment at the time of registration. It is sufficient for the respondents to establish that they had the capacity to pay the sale consideration. It is not necessary that they should always carry the money with them from the date of the suit till the date of the decree. It would, therefore, be clear that the courts below have appropriately exercised their discretion for granting the relief of specific performance to the respondents on sound principles of law.
6. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Alert