Delhi HC Explains Legislative Intent of 'Readiness' and 'Willingness' in Section 16 of Specific Relief Act

The Delhi High Court has explained the legislative intent behind terms 'readiness' and 'willingness' in Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act. 

Holding that mere empty words are not sufficient to establish readiness and willingness, the Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that, "While the “willingness” indicates his state of mind which is determined through the conduct of the plaintiff, the “readiness” indicates the financial capacity of the plaintiff which is required to be proved through evidence that he had the financial capacity to perform the Agreement"

It was further said that, "“readiness and willingness” is not an expression of art and science, but an expression through words to place fact and law of one’s case for a relief. In order to gather true spirit behind a plea it should be read as a whole and to test whether the plaintiff has performed his obligations, one has to see the pith and substance of the plea. Unless statute “specifically require a plea to be made in any particular form, it can be in any form. No specific phraseology or language is required to take such a plea.”"

Counsel Bhagat Singh appeared for the plaintiffs.

In this case, the plaintiffs sought specific performance and permanent injunction for an Agreement to Sell property. The agreement involved a total consideration of Rs.4,00,00,000, with an initial payment of Rs.2,00,00,000.

Delays arose during property conversion, and fraud allegations emerged when defendant No.1 demanded extra payment and explored selling to others. Plaintiffs claimed readiness to fulfill their obligations. In response, defendant No.1 argued the plaintiffs failed to arrange funds, rendering the agreement void. Another agreement with defendant No.2 faced payment issues.

Legal challenges arose over the property's conversion and an unauthorized transfer. Despite reconciliation attempts, the plaintiffs pursued the suit, which defendant No.1 deemed malicious. The defendants went ex-parte.

The High Court observed that it was quite apparent that the suit had been filed in collusion with defendant No. 2, owing to which no specific performance of the second Agreement to Sell had been sought. In that context, it was further said that, "the plaintiffs have failed to disclose that the two Agreements in fact were part of one transaction as is evident from the testimony of PW1 and PW2. The plaintiffs have therefore fraudulently attempted to also seek the specific performance of the Agreement to Sell Ex.P1 for the entire suit property when they themselves were privy to the execution of subsequent Agreement to Sell in respect of part property, in favour of defendant no.2."

Therefore, it was held that there was no agreement with respect to the entire properly, and by implication, the first Agreement to Sell got cancelled with the second Agreement to Sell.

Considering the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to pay the balance for sale consideration, the Court observed that, "the factum of his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract is to be adjudged with reference to the conduct of the party and the attending circumstances. The court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract."

With that background, the Court held that the conduct of the plaintiffs also did not support their averments of Readiness and Willingness; rather spoke a contrary language. In that context, it was said that, "though the plaintiff has asserted that he is already been ready and willing but had failed to disclose anything about the resources which he had or from where he could make the payment of the balance sale consideration. Mere empty words of the plaintiff are not sufficient to establish that he had funds to make the payment of the balance amount nor his conduct reflected that he was willing to perform his part of the Agreement."

Subsequently, it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled for recovery, and the suit was dismissed.

Cause Title: Suresh Shah & Anr. vs Sarita Gupta & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment