R. Shama Naik v. G. Srinivasiah

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: J.B. Pardiwala
R. Mahadevan
Judgment Date: 2024-11-28
Court Decision / Holding: Petition dismissed.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

R. Shama Naik

Respondents

G. Srinivasiah

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish
• Girish Ananthamurthy

Counsels for Respondents

• Manjunath Meled
• Sandeep Sharma
• Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Udapudi
• Ganesh Kumar R.

Case Synopsis & Summary

R. Shama Naik v. G. Srinivasiah concerns a suit for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, based on an agreement of sale dated 03.03.2005. The petitioner-plaintiff claimed to be always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and had paid earnest money of Rs.12,50,000, while the respondent-defendant allegedly refused to execute the sale deed. The trial court granted a decree for specific performance. On appeal, the Karnataka High Court set aside the decree, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish readiness and willingness to perform. The Supreme Court, noting Section 16(c) of the Act (as it stood before the 2018 amendment), reiterated the settled law that a plaintiff must aver readiness and willingness in the plaint and prove it through oral and documentary evidence showing the availability of funds to pay in time. It explained the distinction: readiness is the capacity to perform (including financial ability) and willingness relates to conduct. Because the evidence on record did not prove consistent readiness and willingness, the High Court’s conclusion was not perverse. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The decision clarifies that failure to satisfy Section 16(c) bars specific performance where readiness and willingness are not established.

Provisions of Law Cited

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

There is a fine distinction between readiness and willingness; both ingredients are necessary for the relief of specific performance.
Readiness means capacity (including financial ability) to perform; willingness relates to conduct.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, having paid earnest money and being ready to complete payment as per the agreement; The trial court granted a decree for specific performance; The High Court interfered by holding that readiness and willingness were not established; The petitioner argues that the evidence on record shows funds and readiness, that Section 16(c) should not bar relief given the earnest payment; The Supreme Court is invited to restore the trial court decree.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness; Mere payment of earnest money does not prove readiness; the plaintiff did not provide evidence of financial ability to perform; The High Court's conclusion is correct; Section 16(c) bars relief.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1325 : 2024 INSC 927 ## **R. Shama Naik** **v.** ## **G. Srinivasiah** (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13933 of 2021) 28 November 2024 **[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]** ## **Issue for Consideration** Whether plaintiff failed to establish that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. ## **Headnotes[†]** **Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.16(c) – Petitioner-original plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based on agreement to sale dated 03.03.2005 – It is the case of the petitioner that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – The trial court allowed the suit and passed a decree for specific performance – However, the High Court held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – Interference required or not:** **Held:** Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (prior to amendment w.e.f. 1.10.2018) bars the relief of the specific performance of a contract in favour of a person who fails to aver readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract – The law is well settled – The plaintiff is obliged not only to make specific statement and averments in the plaint but is also obliged to adduce necessary oral and documentary evidence to show the availability of funds to make payment in terms of the contract in time – There is a fine distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract – Both the ingredients are necessary for the relief of specific performance – While readiness means the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the plaintiff – The High Court in first appeal upon appreciation of the evidence on record both oral and documentary has arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1326 ## **Digital Supreme Court Reports** was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract – This being a finding of fact and cannot be termed as perverse, there is no good reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. [Paras 8, 10, 12, 13, 14] ## **List of Acts** Specific Relief Act, 1963 ## **List of Keywords** Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963; Readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract; Availability of funds; Oral and documentary evidence. ## **Case Arising From** EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13933 of 2021 From the Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2021 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in RFA No. 1017 of 2013 ## **Appearances for Parties** Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, Girish Ananthamurthy, Advs. for the Petitioner. Manjunath Meled, Sandeep Sharma, Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Udapudi, Ganesh Kumar R., Advs. for the Respondent. ## **Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court** ## **Order** 1. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Regular First Appeal No. 1017 of 2013 dated 01-07-2021 by which the Regular First Appeal filed by the original defendant came to be allowed thereby quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree of specific performance passed by the trial court in favour of the petitioner herein-original plaintiff. 2. It appears that the petitioner herein original plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based on agreement of sale dated 3rd March 2005. [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1327 ## **R. Shama Naik v. G. Srinivasiah** 3. The total sale consideration fixed in the Agreement of sale is Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lakh only). Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakh fifty thousand only) came to be paid by the petitioner herein towards earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement of sale. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but it is the respondent herein original-defendant who was not inclined to execute the sale deed despite accepting the amount of Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakh fifty thousand only) towards earnest money. 5. In such circumstances, referred to above, the petitioner herein instituted Original Suit No.1101 of 2008 praying for a relief of specific performance or in the alternative for refund of the earnest money. 6. The trial court allowed the suit and passed a decree for specific performance. The defendant went in appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal of the defendant on the issue of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in performing his part of the contract. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. 8. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (prior to amendment w.e.f. 1.10.2018) bars the relief of the specific performance of a contract in favour of a person who fails to aver readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. 9. There is a legion of precedents on the subject of readiness and willingness. 10. The law is well settled. The plaintiff is obliged not only to make specific statement and averments in the plaint but is also obliged to adduce necessary oral and documentary evidence to show the availability of funds to make payment in terms of the contract in time. 11. There is a fine distinction between readiness and willingness to perform the contract. Both the ingredients are necessary for the relief of specific performance. 12. While readiness means the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which would include his financial position, willingness relates to the conduct of the plaintiff. [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1328 ## **Digital Supreme Court Reports** 13. The High Court in first appeal upon appreciation of the evidence on record both oral and documentary has arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 14. This being a finding of fact and cannot be termed as perverse, there is no good reason for us to interfere with the impugned judgment. 15. In the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 16. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ## _Result of the case:_ Petition dismissed. - _†Headnotes prepared by:_ Ankit Gyan