Court’s decision
The Kerala High Court, through Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs challenging the trial court’s refusal to grant specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property. The Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to maintain consistency in pleadings regarding readiness and willingness, a mandatory requirement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The Bench affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy and cannot be granted when the plaintiffs’ conduct is doubtful or when the foundational pleadings contradict earlier admissions.
The Court examined the agreement between the first plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8 concerning the property originally owned by the mother-in-law of the first plaintiff. It highlighted that the second plaintiff, who later claimed to be a nominee, had earlier taken a contradictory stand before revenue authorities by asserting full rights through a partition deed—thereby undermining the pleadings in the suit. The Court unanimously held that inconsistent positions disentitle a litigant from claiming equitable relief. Consequently, the High Court upheld the trial court’s decision to limit relief to refund of the advance amount with interest.
Facts
The dispute arose from an agreement executed between the first plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8 for the sale of immovable property belonging to the defendants’ predecessor. The plaintiffs asserted that an advance amount had been paid and that possession was partly granted in furtherance of the agreement. The first plaintiff subsequently claimed assignment of rights to the plaintiff firm, and the second plaintiff was described as a nominee who would ultimately benefit from the transaction.
The defendants disputed the plaintiffs’ version and argued that the plaintiffs were never ready and willing to complete the transaction. Further, documents produced by the defendants revealed that the second plaintiff had earlier asserted full title over the property in independent revenue proceedings on the basis of a family partition deed, which contradicted the plaintiffs’ claim of derivative rights under the agreement.
Issues
The core issues before the High Court were:
- Whether the plaintiffs proved readiness and willingness as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
- Whether inconsistent pleadings taken before revenue authorities barred equitable relief of specific performance.
- Whether the plaintiff firm or the second plaintiff could enforce the agreement when the original agreement was entered only by the first plaintiff.
- Whether the trial court erred in granting only refund of the advance amount rather than directing specific performance.
Petitioner’s arguments
The appellants contended that the agreement was validly executed and supported by consideration. They argued that possession was partly transferred and that substantial steps were taken to perform their obligations. The appellants submitted that the plaintiff firm and the second plaintiff were beneficiaries of the original arrangement and therefore entitled to enforce the agreement. They emphasised that the delay in completion was attributable solely to the defendants’ conduct, and that the plaintiffs consistently manifested readiness and willingness to complete the transaction.
The appellants challenged the trial court’s reliance on the second plaintiff’s revenue proceedings statements, arguing that such statements concerned a different context and could not defeat contractual rights arising from the agreement. They sought a decree directing specific performance and execution of sale deed.
Respondent’s arguments
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ own documents revealed that they were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. They highlighted that the second plaintiff had independently asserted exclusive ownership before revenue authorities, which was wholly incompatible with the plaintiffs’ stand that rights emanated solely through the original agreement. The defendants asserted that this contradictory conduct disqualified the plaintiffs from obtaining equitable relief.
They further argued that the plaintiff firm and the second plaintiff were strangers to the agreement. The defendants denied any obligation to execute a sale deed in favour of persons not party to the agreement, and maintained that plaintiffs had failed to comply with essential terms, justifying refusal of specific performance.
Analysis of the law
The Court examined Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, which mandates consistent readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations. The Bench reiterated that specific performance is an equitable remedy requiring strict compliance with good faith and candour. Any contradictory conduct, especially inconsistent claims to title in parallel proceedings, undermines the credibility of the plaintiffs and disentitles them to this discretionary relief.
The Court also analysed the principle that only parties to the contract—or those claiming through them—may seek specific performance. Since the plaintiff firm and the second plaintiff were not original parties, and no conclusive evidence of assignment or nomination was produced, they could not claim enforcement rights. The Court held that revenue proceedings statements, though not determinative of civil title, were relevant in assessing the plaintiffs’ conduct and consistency.
Precedent analysis
The Bench relied on settled precedents of the Supreme Court that emphasise:
- Specific performance is discretionary and will not be granted when plaintiffs take inconsistent positions.
- Readiness and willingness must be proved through consistent pleadings and conduct.
- A person not party to a contract cannot enforce it unless assignment is proved.
- Courts must consider overall conduct, including statements made in collateral proceedings.
These principles guided the Court in affirming the trial court’s refusal of specific performance.
Court’s reasoning
Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that the second plaintiff’s statements before the revenue authorities fatally weakened the plaintiffs’ claim. The Court held that while such statements may not conclusively determine title, they directly impact the equitable assessment necessary under Section 16(c). The plaintiffs’ contradictory stands created serious doubt about their genuine intention to rely solely on the contractual arrangement.
The Court also noted that the agreement was between the first plaintiff and the defendants alone, and the plaintiffs had failed to establish any binding assignment in favour of the plaintiff firm or the second plaintiff. Since the defendants had not committed breach and the plaintiffs had not proved readiness and willingness, the trial court rightly refused specific performance. The High Court found no reason to interfere.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court’s refusal to decree specific performance. The appellants were held entitled only to refund of the advance amount with the interest determined by the lower court. The judgment reinforces the principle that parties seeking specific performance must exhibit unblemished conduct and maintain consistent claims throughout all proceedings. Failure to do so disentitles them to equitable relief, even if the agreement is otherwise valid.
Implications
This ruling strengthens jurisprudence on the discretionary nature of specific performance. It serves as a cautionary reminder that courts will scrutinise every aspect of a plaintiff’s conduct, including statements made in collateral forums. Litigants cannot simultaneously assert ownership under a separate transaction and seek contractual enforcement under a conflicting agreement. The decision will guide future courts in matters involving inconsistent pleadings, assignments, nominee claims, and Section 16(c) evaluation. It also clarifies that refund of the advance amount remains the default relief when plaintiffs fail to meet the equitable standards required for specific performance.
