Property Sale Agreement and Readiness: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Due to Non-Compliance

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Mehboob-ur-Rehman (Dead) Through LRs vs. Ahsanul Ghani stands as a significant precedent in contract enforcement and specific performance cases. The case highlights how crucial it is for a party seeking relief under the Specific Relief Act to demonstrate consistent readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations. This ruling reiterates that mere claims are not enough—substantive proof is required to succeed in a court of law.

The crux of the matter revolved around an agreement for the sale of immovable property, where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had failed to execute the sale deed despite receiving an advance payment. The Supreme Court, after examining the facts, dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness, as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated in 1979 when Mehboob-ur-Rehman (the plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance, alleging that the defendant, Ahsanul Ghani, had entered into a legally binding contract to sell House Number 102 at Faithful Ganj, Kanpur Nagar, for Rs. 30,000. It was asserted that Rs. 15,000 was paid as advance consideration, with the remaining amount to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.

The case took a complicated turn due to the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which imposed restrictions on the sale of land. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was obligated to obtain the necessary permissions but had failed to do so. After years of litigation and appeals through different levels of the judiciary, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff had met the legal criteria for enforcing specific performance of the contract.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Mehboob-ur-Rehman)

The defendant had legally agreed to sell the property and had received an advance payment, establishing a valid contract.
The plaintiff had consistently expressed readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
The restrictions imposed by the Urban Land Ceiling Act were the defendant’s responsibility, and he should have sought the necessary permissions.
The trial court’s judgment was correct in upholding the agreement, and the appellate court’s interference was unwarranted.

Arguments by the Respondent (Ahsanul Ghani)

The agreement was allegedly fraudulent and obtained through misrepresentation.
The signatures on the agreement were misused in connection with a financial transaction in which the defendant acted as a guarantor.
The plaintiff had failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the contract.
The trial court erred in its assessment, and the appellate courts correctly overturned its ruling.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the pleadings and evidence on record. A key focus of the judgment was the necessity for a plaintiff to explicitly plead and prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract.

Referring to previous precedents, the Court observed:

“It is clear from the averments made in the plaint and from the evidence brought on record that there is a complete absence of continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. There is nothing in his conduct which may even remotely show that prior to the notice dated 06.05.1979, the plaintiff had expressed any readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.”

The Court further analyzed:

The plaintiff’s pleadings lacked explicit assertions of readiness and willingness.
The lower appellate court rightly overturned the trial court’s ruling based on substantive deficiencies.
The plaintiff’s attempt to amend his pleadings at the appellate stage was an afterthought and rightly rejected.

Concluding, the Court ruled:

“In the above set of circumstances, we are unable to find any fault in the findings of the High Court that the plaintiff had failed to aver and prove his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The suit was bound to fail on this ground alone.”

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling carries significant implications for specific performance cases and contractual disputes:

Essentiality of Readiness and Willingness: Plaintiffs must clearly plead and prove their continuous commitment to fulfilling contractual obligations.
Judicial Emphasis on Evidence: Courts will not infer readiness from indirect conduct; explicit proof is required.
Limited Scope for Amendments: A late-stage amendment cannot cure fundamental deficiencies in the original pleadings.
Guidance for Real Estate Transactions: This case sets a precedent on contractual obligations in property dealings.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the importance of clear and continuous adherence to contractual commitments. It serves as a critical reference point for litigants and legal practitioners dealing with suits for specific performance.

Petitioner Name: Mehboob-ur-Rehman (Dead) Through LRs.
Respondent Name: Ahsanul Ghani.
Judgment By: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Place Of Incident: Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 15-02-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Mehboob-ur-Rehman (D vs Ahsanul Ghani Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-02-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Declared Infructuous
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category