Jugraj Singh and Another Vs. Labh Singh and Others

Jugraj Singh and Another vs Labh Singh and Others

Status Overruled Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Nov 28, 1994

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/647533

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/647533
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: K. Ramaswamy and; N. Venkatachala, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 28, 1994
Case Number: Special. Leave Petition. (C) No. 19640 of 1994.
Subject: Contract

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - If he fails to do so, his claim for specific performance must fail.

Key legal issue: Contract
Acts & sections: Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16(3)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jugraj Singh and Another

Advocate Rajinder Sachher,; Rani Chhabra and; Bharathi Sharma, Advs

Respondent

Labh Singh and Others

Legal References

Acts: Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16(3)
Cases Referred: Gomathinavagam Pillai and Ors. v. Palaniswami Nadar
Reported In: AIR1995SC945a; 1995(3)ALT42(SC); (1995)111PLR706; 1994(5)SCALE286; [1994]Supp6SCR168; 1995(1)LC221(SC)
Overruled By: <a href="/judgements/description/641899" target="_blank">Ram Awadh (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. vs. Achhaibar Dubey & Anr. </a>

Court's Analysis

Prior History: From the Judgument and Order dated 31-5-94 of the Panjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second A. No. 2069 of 1990.

Excerpt

- - if he fails to do so, his claim for specific performance must fail......negativing the plea of the petitioners that labha singh plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the high court equally committed an error of law in rejecting that plea. we find no force in the contention.3. section 16(c) of the specific relief act, 1963 provides that the plaintiff must plead and prove that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the essential terms of the contract. the continuous readiness and willingness at all stages from the date of the agreement till the date of the hearing of the suit need to be proved. the substance of the matter and surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the plaintiff must be taken into consideration in adjudging readiness and willingness to perform the plaintiff's part of the contract.4. the privy council in ardeshir r. rama v. flora season ` has held that in a suit for specific performance the averment of readiness and willingness on plaintiff's part upto the date of the decree is necessary.5. this court in gomathinavagam pillai and ors. v. palaniswami nadar : [1967]1scr227 quoting with approval ardeshir's case (supra) had held as follows:but the respondent has claimed a decree for specific performance and it is for him to establish that he was since the date of the contract, continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. if he fails to do so, his claim for specific performance must fail.that plea is specifically available to the vendor/defendant. it is personal to him. the subsequent purchasers have got only the right to defend their purchase on the premise that they have no prior knowledge of the agreement of sale with the plaintiff. they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. though they are necessary parties to the suit, since any decree obtained by the plaintiff would be binding on the subsequent purchasers, the plea that the plaintiff must always be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract must be.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The petitioners are defendants 2 and 3. The first defendant-Jasbir Singh had executed an agreement of sale dated 30.8.1984 in favour of the plaintiffs Labh Singh and his brother Surinder Singh. The petitioners had an agreement of sale on 4.1.1985. The plaintiffs filed the suit against Jasbir Singh, the first defendant. All the courts have concurrently found that the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 are not bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the prior agreement dated 30.8.84 and accordingly, decreed the suit. Thus, this S.L.P.

2. It is contended for the petitioners that the trial court having found the petitioners to be necessary parties was not right in negativing the plea of the petitioners that Labha Singh plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the High Court equally committed an error of law in rejecting that plea. We find no force in the contention.

3. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the plaintiff must plead and prove that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the essential terms of the contract. The continuous readiness and willingness at all stages from the date of the agreement till the date of the hearing of the suit need to be proved. The substance of the matter and surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the plaintiff must be taken into consideration in adjudging readiness and willingness to perform the plaintiff's part of the contract.

4. The Privy Council in Ardeshir R. Rama v. Flora Season ` has held that in a suit for specific performance the averment of readiness and willingness on plaintiff's part upto the date of the decree is necessary.

5. This Court in Gomathinavagam Pillai and Ors. v. Palaniswami Nadar : [1967]1SCR227 quoting with approval Ardeshir's case (supra) had held as follows:

But the respondent has claimed a decree for specific performance and it is for him to establish that he was since the date of the contract, continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. If he fails to do so, his claim for specific performance must fail.

That plea is specifically available to the vendor/defendant. It is personal to him. The subsequent purchasers have got only the right to defend their purchase on the premise that they have no prior knowledge of the agreement of sale with the plaintiff. They are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. Though they are necessary parties to the suit, since any decree obtained by the plaintiff would be binding on the subsequent purchasers, the plea that the plaintiff must always be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract must be available only to the vendor or his legal representatives, but no to the subsequent purchasers. The High Court, therefore, was right in rejecting the petitioners' contention and rightly did not accept the plea. We do not find any ground warranting interference.

6.The S.L.P. is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1994 Same Parties Jugraj Singh and Another vs Labh Singh and Others Same Subject Contract Same Judge K. Ramaswamy and; N. Venkatachala, JJ. Acts & Sections Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16(3)

Contract