Title: Civil Appeal

Case: Surinder Kaur versus Bahadur Singh

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7114 of 2019

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date: 1a1 September 2019

Bench: Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.

Parties: Surinder Kaur (D) through LR. Jasinderjit Singh (D) through LRS. (Appellants) versus Bahadur Singh (D) through LRS. (Respondents)

Relevant cases: Rajinder Singh versus Santa Singh, Ramesh Chandra versus Chuni Lal

Laws: Specific Relief Act, 1963; Contract Act, 1872

Brief Facts: Mohinder Kaur, predecessor in interest of the appellants entered into an agreement with Bahadur Singh, predecessor in interest of the respondents on 13.05.1964 whereby she agreed to sell the suit land to Bahadur Singh for a total sale consideration of Rs.5605/. Out of this, Rs.1000/ was paid as earnest money at the time of execution of agreement to sell, and it was agreed that the balance amount would be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The possession of the land was handed over to the vendee on the date of agreement to sell itself. It is not disputed that the litigation referred to in the agreement was decided on 17.01.1977, i.e., about 13 years after the agreement to sell was entered into. Bahadur Singh requested Mohinder Kaur to execute the sale deed but since she failed to do so, a suit for specific performance of the agreement was filed by Bahadur Singh. Admittedly, Bahadur Singh did not even pay a penny as rent till the date of filing of the suit.

Arguments Raised by Petitioner: The appellants contended that Bahadur Singh was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as he did not pay any rent for 13 years and did not deposit the balance amount in court till 1984. They also contended that there was undue hardship caused to Mohinder Kaur by granting specific performance as she had agreed to sell the land for a meagre amount and had handed over possession without receiving full payment. They relied on the case of Surjit Singh v. Harbans Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 50] where specific performance was refused on similar grounds.

Arguments Raised by Respondent: The respondents contended that Bahadur Singh was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as he had paid earnest money and taken possession of the land. He had also filed a suit within three years after the litigation referred to in the agreement was decided. He had also deposited the balance amount in court during the pendency of the suit. They also contended that there was no undue hardship caused to Mohinder Kaur by granting specific performance as she had voluntarily entered into the agreement and had not raised any objection regarding non-payment of rent or any other breach by Bahadur Singh in her written statement or evidence.

Issue: Whether a vendee who does not perform one of his promises in a contract can obtain the discretionary relief of specific performance of that very contract.

Ratio: A party who seeks specific performance must prove that he has performed or was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The court has discretion to grant or refuse specific performance depending on facts and circumstances of each case. The court may consider factors such as convenience, hardship, fairness, equity, etc. while exercising its discretion.

Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the High Court which had decreed the suit for specific performance in favour of the respondents. The Supreme Court held that there was no evidence to show that Bahadur Singh was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The Court also held that there was no undue hardship caused to Mohinder Kaur by granting specific performance as she had agreed to sell the land for a meagre amount and had handed over possession without receiving full payment. The Court also found no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in favour of Bahadur Singh as he had acted fairly and equitably throughout.

The Court distinguished this case from its earlier decision in Surjit Singh v. Harbans Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 50] where it had refused specific performance on the ground that there was no readiness and willingness on part of vendee who had failed to pay rent for more than 20 years.