Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell property at 82, Jor Bagh, New Delhi, dated 05.10.1974, between the plaintiffs (Urvashi Aggarwal and her son) and the defendant (Smt. Suraj Kumari). The total consideration was Rs.1,85,000, with a payment schedule requiring Rs.20,000 on signing, Rs.50,000 by 31.10.1974, and monthly installments of Rs.7,000 from January 1975. The sale deed was to be executed by 31.03.1975, subject to L&DO and Income Tax permissions. The plaintiffs paid only Rs.70,000 (Rs.20,000 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.10,000) and claimed they were put in proprietary possession. They alleged that the defendants refused to perform in 1987 after the ground floor tenant vacated. The defendants denied readiness and willingness, asserting time was essence and the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding time was essence, plaintiffs were not ready and willing, and the suit was beyond limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the date for performance was fixed (31.03.1975), and the plaintiffs failed to prove any extension of that date. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not pay the balance consideration or take steps to enforce the agreement until 1987, indicating lack of readiness and willingness. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Plaintiffs must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform essential terms of contract - Held that mere pleading is insufficient; evidence must demonstrate financial capacity and actual performance - Plaintiffs failed to prove readiness and willingness (Paras 6-8). B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Suit for Specific Performance - Limitation period starts from date fixed for performance, or if no date fixed, from date of notice of refusal - Held that where a date is fixed (31.03.1975), limitation runs from that date unless extension is proved - Plaintiffs did not prove extension of date (Paras 7-9). C) Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 55 - Time Essence of Contract - When time is essence, failure to perform within stipulated time makes contract voidable at option of promisee - Held that time was essence of agreement; plaintiffs' failure to pay installments as per schedule disentitled them to specific performance (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation and whether the plaintiffs proved their readiness and willingness to perform the agreement.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment of the High Court affirming the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit for specific performance is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Limitation
- Readiness and willingness
- Time essence of contract
- Article 54 Limitation Act
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- Section 55 Indian Contract Act
