‘Readiness and Willingness Not Proved’: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Specific Performance Appeal, Says ‘Mere Statement Would Not Suffice
Kiran Raj
The Andhra Pradesh High Court Single Bench of Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, has dismissed an appeal challenging a trial court’s decision that denied specific performance of a sale agreement while ordering a refund of the advance amount paid.
The appellant, who was the plaintiff in O.S.No.92 of 1993 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, had filed a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale dated November 29, 1989. The agreement pertained to five acres of land, with the plaintiff agreeing to purchase the property at Rs.1,80,000 per acre and paying an advance of Rs.2,50,000. The agreement stipulated that possession of the land was to be handed over by January 31, 1990, allowing the plaintiff to develop it into plots and seek layout approval.
The plaintiff contended that despite repeated demands, the defendants did not deliver possession and instead cultivated the land with maize in 1990-91, thus breaching the agreement. The plaintiff further argued that the agreement required the defendants to sign necessary documents for layout approval and to provide vacant possession. The failure of the defendants to do so was, according to the plaintiff, a deliberate attempt to deprive him of his contractual rights.
The defendants, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiff had wilfully defaulted on paying the balance sale consideration, which was to be paid by August 1, 1990. They claimed that the plaintiff lacked the financial capability to complete the transaction and had instead divided the land into plots and entered into further sale agreements with third parties without first obtaining ownership rights. The defendants stated that they had removed their cotton crop in a timely manner, in accordance with the agreement, and that the plaintiff had failed to comply with the contractual obligations.
The trial court, upon reviewing the evidence, concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance. However, it ordered the defendants to refund the advance amount of Rs.2,50,000 to the plaintiff.
Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao examined the plaintiff's claims and reviewed the evidence presented before the trial court. The Court observed that while the execution of the agreement of sale was undisputed, the primary issue revolved around whether the plaintiff had demonstrated continuous readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations.
“For relief of specific performance, the plaintiff has to prove that all along and till the final decision of the suit, he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness by adducing evidence.”
The Court noted that the plaintiff had not issued any legal notice to the defendants before initiating legal proceedings. Additionally, the plaintiff had not taken steps to obtain a registered sale deed for the portion of the property corresponding to the advance payment made. The Court stated that mere claims of readiness and willingness were insufficient without substantive evidence.
The High Court also examined the implications of the plaintiff’s actions, including entering into multiple sale agreements with third parties before obtaining legal ownership of the property. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s judgement in K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan, stating:
“Even if time is not of the essence of the contract, the court may infer that it is to be performed within a reasonable time based on the express terms of the contract, the nature of the property, and surrounding circumstances.”
The Court also referred to the plaintiff’s cross-examination, in which he admitted that he had sold plots from the suit property to third parties without receiving legal title from the defendants. This, according to the Court, was contradictory to his claim that he was prepared to fulfil the contract.
Further, the Court referenced the judgement in Janardan Das and Others v. Durga Prasad Agarwalla and Others, wherein the Supreme Court held:
“It is settled law that for relief of specific performance, the plaintiff has to prove that all along and till the final decision of the suit, he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness by adducing evidence. This crucial facet has to be determined by considering all circumstances including availability of funds, and a mere statement or averment in the plaint of readiness and willingness would not suffice.”
The Court also examined the testimony of P.W.2, who had purchased a plot from the plaintiff under an unregistered agreement. P.W.2’s testimony confirmed that the plaintiff had initiated land sales before obtaining ownership, which supported the defendants' argument that the plaintiff was not financially prepared to complete the original transaction.
The evidence of D.W.4, a neighbouring landowner, was also considered. D.W.4 testified that the defendants had cleared the land of cotton crops as per the agreement and had refrained from further cultivation. He further stated that due to the plaintiff’s failure to pay the balance amount, the defendants suffered financial losses.
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment, stating:
“For the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff is not entitled to the main relief of specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 29.11.1989. The trial Judge rightly held that the plaintiff is entitled only to the alternative relief of refund of the advance amount.”
The Court stated that the decree and judgment dated February 23, 2004, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, were to remain in effect. The Court further directed that each party bear its own costs in the appeal. Additionally, all pending miscellaneous petitions related to the case were closed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Sri Venkata Challa
For the Respondents: Sri P. Sridhar Reddy
Case Title: V. Surya Rao v. C. Anji Reddy & Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010050772004
Case Number: First Appeal No. 2830/2004
Bench: Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao
[Read/Download order]
