Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ritu Saxena, filed a suit for specific performance of an Agreement dated July 18, 2004, for the purchase of a flat in New Delhi for Rs. 50 lakhs. She paid Rs. 1 lakh as advance. The appellant claimed that she had arranged a loan of Rs. 50 lakhs from ICICI Home Finance Company Limited, but the loan was not disbursed because the defendants failed to execute a formal agreement on stamp paper. The trial court dismissed the suit for specific performance, holding that the appellant failed to prove her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract, though it granted a decree for refund of Rs. 1 lakh with interest. The High Court affirmed this decision. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the appellant, her husband, and a bank official. The bank official confirmed that a loan of Rs. 13 lakhs had been sanctioned for another property under the same application number, but no loan was sanctioned for the suit property. The appellant and her husband made oral assertions of financial capacity but produced no bank statements, property documents, or evidence of funds. The Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were based on proper appreciation of evidence and that the appellant had not discharged the burden of proving readiness and willingness. The Court also noted that specific performance is a discretionary remedy and that the appellant had paid only 2% of the consideration. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Burden of Proof - The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract from the date of agreement till the decree. Mere approval of loan and oral assertions of financial capacity are insufficient without documentary evidence of funds or steps taken to arrange payment. (Paras 8-10) B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Discretionary Relief - Specific performance is a discretionary remedy. Courts may decline relief where the plaintiff has paid only a small fraction of the consideration (2%) and fails to demonstrate financial capacity. (Paras 9-10) C) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Scope of Appeal - The Supreme Court does not ordinarily reappreciate evidence in appeals under Article 136, especially when there are concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and the High Court. (Paras 11-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant proved her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the Agreement to Sell so as to be entitled to a decree of specific performance.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. The appellant was not entitled to specific performance but was entitled to refund of Rs. 1 lakh with 15% interest per annum from the date of the agreement.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- readiness and willingness
- financial capacity
- burden of proof
- discretionary relief
- concurrent findings of fact
- Article 136 of the Constitution of India
