- Readiness & Willingness
- 1. N.P. Thirugnanam Vs. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, (1995) 5 SCC 115
- 2. Sukhbir Singh Vs. Brij Pal Singh, (1997) 2 SCC 200
- 3. Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mohammed Haji Latif, AIR 1968 SC 1413
- 4. Bal Krishna Vs. Bhagwan Das, (2008) 12 CC 145
- 5. Dadarao Vs. Ramrao, (1999) 8 SCC 416
- 6. Man Kaur Vs. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512
- 7. Jai Singh Vs. Gurmej Singh, (2009) 15 SCC 747
- 8. A.C. Arulappan vs. Ahalya Naik, (2001) 6 SCC 600
- 9. K. Narendra vs. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd., (1999) 5 SCC 77
- 10. Prakash Chandra vs. Angadlal and Ors (1979) 4 SCC 393
Indian Court Cases on Readiness & Willingness
# Readiness & Willingness
# 1. N.P. Thirugnanam Vs. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, (1995) 5 SCC 115
Wherein it was observed that “continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent for grant of the relief which plaintiff must establish on evidence. Availability of consideration amount, conduct of the plaintiff and attending circumstances have to be taken into account by Court in adjudging readiness and willingness of the plaintiff.”
# 2. Sukhbir Singh Vs. Brij Pal Singh, (1997) 2 SCC 200
Law is not in doubt and it is not a condition that the respondent should have ready cash with them. It is sufficient for the respondents to establish that they had the capacity to pay the sale consideration. It is not necessary that they should always carry the money with them from the date of the suit till date of the decree.
# 3. Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mohammed Haji Latif, AIR 1968 SC 1413
Wherein in interalia it was observed that “when a party in possession of best evidence which would throw light on the issue in controversy withholds it, Courts ought to draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that onus of proof does not lie on him and as such the party cannot rely on abstract doctrine of onus of proof or on the fact that he was not called upon to produce it “
# 4. Bal Krishna Vs. Bhagwan Das, (2008) 12 CC 145
Wherein it was observed that “readiness and willingness to pay a lesser consideration cannot be permitted.” It was also observed that first requirement in the suit for specific performance that the plaintiff must aver in plaint and thereafter prove his readiness and willingness which must be in accordance with terms of agreement. The readiness and willingness of plaintiff would be required to demonstrated by him from institution of the suit till it is culminated into decree of the Court.
# 5. Dadarao Vs. Ramrao, (1999) 8 SCC 416
Wherein it was observed that “where agreement itself providing for contingencies of (i) seller refusing to sell and (ii) purchaser refusing to buy by stipulating the return of earnest money plus another sum in either circumstance, on facts, there was no obligation on the seller to complete the sale transaction and the contract could not be specifically enforced.
# 6. Man Kaur Vs. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512
The agreement does not specifically provide for specific performance. Nor does it bar specific performance. It provides for payment of damages in the event of breach by either party. The provision for damages in the agreement is not intended to provide the vendor an option of paying money in lieu of specific performance. Therefore, we are of the view that plaintiff will be entitled to seek specific performance (even in the absence of a specific provision therefor) subject to his proving breach by the defendant and that he was ready and willing to perform his obligation under the contract, in terms of the contract.
# 7. Jai Singh Vs. Gurmej Singh, (2009) 15 SCC 747
Wherein it was observed that “cosharer selling his share in the joint holding puts vendee into possession of the land in his possession. Transfer is of his right as a sharer in land and right to remain in its exclusive possession till joint holding is partitioned. Sale of subsequent portion of the land out of the joint holding by one of the coowners is sale of a share out of the joint holding.”
# 8. A.C. Arulappan vs. Ahalya Naik, (2001) 6 SCC 600
Wherein it was observed that “grant of a decree for specific performance of contract is not automatic and is one of the discretions of the Court and the Court has to consider whether it will be fair, just and equitable. The Court is guided by principle of justice, equity and good conscience.”
# 9. K. Narendra vs. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd., (1999) 5 SCC 77
It was observed that “Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, preserves judicial discretion of Court as to decreeing specific performance and requires meticulous consideration of all facts and circumstances of the case before ordering enforcement.”
# 10. Prakash Chandra vs. Angadlal and Ors (1979) 4 SCC 393
Wherein it was observed that the ordinary rule is that specific performance should be granted. It ought to be denied only when equitable considerations point to its refusal and the circumstances show that damages would constitute an adequate relief. If the conduct of the plaintiff has not been such as to disentitle him to the relief of specific performance by showing that he had acted fairly throughout nor any evidence that the plaintiff secured an unfair advantage. Nor is there anything to prove that the performance of the contract would involve the vendors in some hardship which they did not foresee, there is no reason why the plaintiff should not be granted the relief of specific performance.