Nishka Srinivas Veluvali
Published On: January 21, 2022 at 17:59 IST
The Supreme Court noted that the conduct of the Plaintiff is very important in the Suit of Specific Performance and the same has to be evaluated by the Court too.
The Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna stated that, “In evaluating whether the plaintiff 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”.
The Bench considering the Appeal filed against the Madras High Court Order that had endorsed the decree of specific performance.
The Bench also noted that the Trial Court lacked on framing an issue on whether the Plaintiff was ready and is keen on performing his obligations and duties as per the contract and instead evaluated whether Plaintiff is eligible to the relief of specific performance.
The Bench contended,“In doing so, the trial court viewed the legal issue from an incorrect lens. 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. The 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, the judgment fails to analyse the terms of the agreement, the obligations of the parties and the conduct of the respondent or the appellant. 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”.
The Court further on stated that the Plaintiff must provide the proof that he is keen and willing to perform the contract. “The burden lies on the Plaintiff. The Respondent has not led any evidence that he was ready or willing to perform his obligations under the agreement”.
The Court inferred that the remedy for any specific performance is an equitable remedy and the Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act grants this choice to the Court.