Conduct Of Plaintiff Crucial In A Suit Of Specific Performance
Case: Shenbagam vs KK Rathinavel
Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna
Case No.: CA 150 of 2022
Court Observation: “…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 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”
..In deciding whether to grant the remedy of specific performance, specifically in suits relating to sale of immovable property, the courts must be cognizant of the conduct of the parties, the escalation of the price of the suit property, and whether one party will unfairly benefit from the decree. The remedy provided must not cause injustice to a party, specifically when they are not at fault. In the present case, three decades have passed since the agreement to sell was entered into between the parties. The price of the suit property would undoubtedly have escalated. Given the blemished conduct of the respondent-plaintiff in indicating his willingness to perform the contract, we decline in any event to grant the remedy of specific performance of the contract. However, we order a refund of the consideration together with interest at 6% per annum.
Previous Posts
Textual Interpretation Of Statute Should Match With Contextual Interpretation: Supreme Court
Rights Of Parents Irrelevant When Court Decides Custody Of Their Child: Supreme Court
‘Ambush PILs’ Filed To Preclude Genuine Litigants; Summary Dismissal Of Earlier Article 32 Petition Won’t Operate As Res Judicata: Supreme Court Download Judgement
