On Wednesday, the Supreme Court's division bench comprising of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundaresh ruled that in a suit for specific performance, the trial court must frame a specific issue on the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform.

"The object and purpose of framing the issue is so that the parties to the suit can lead the specific evidence on the same. On the aforesaid ground the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit and refusing to pass the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell confirmed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the learned Trial Court to frame the specific issue with respect to the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. On remand the parties be permitted to lead the evidence on the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract, more   particularly, whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the full consideration and whether the plaintiff was having sufficient funds and/or could have managed the balance sale consideration."

The court also noted that the trial court did not frame a specific issue on the plaintiff's readiness and willingness, but made findings on the same and did not suit the plaintiff.

"Such a finding could not have been given by the learned Trial Court without putting the plaintiff to notice and without framing a specific issue on the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. There must be a specific issue framed on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance and before giving any specific finding, the parties must be put to notice. "The object and purpose of framing the issue is to allow the parties to the suit to present specific evidence on the subject."The court therefore remanded the case to the Trial Court to frame the specific issue with respect to the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff.

The buyer paid the seller Rs. 1 crore in earnest money under the agreement to sell, of which Rs. 65 lakhs were paid in cash and Rs. 35 lakhs in the form of a post-dated cheque dated August 25, 2005. The seller's post-dated check was returned or dishonoured with the reason "payment stopped by attachment order." Following that, the buyer filed a suit for specific performance. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, observing that the plaintiff was never in possession of the balance consideration of approximately Rs. 3 crores and Rs. 9 lakhs, implying that there was no readiness and willingness on the plaintiff's part. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because the postdated cheque for Rs. 35 lakhs paid towards part sale consideration was returned, full payment towards part sale consideration was not made, and thus there was no concluded contract between the parties for the sale of the suit property.

Case details

V.S. Ramakrishnan vs. P.M. Muhammed Ali

CA 8050­-8051 OF 2022

Read the Complete judgment on the following link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/16556/16556_2022_5_1503_39573_Judgement_09-Nov-2022.pdf