Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1989 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1989 (12) TMI 344 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the suit was not maintainable? Held that:- The defendant denied the agreement and went on to state that just before his death her husband had agreed to sell to the plaintiff Item No. 1 of the suit property less one acre of paddy field for a sum of ₹ 11,000 but due to the illness of her husband, the sale in question could not be effected. After the written statement to this effect was filed, no application for amendment to the plaint was made. The Trial Court decreed the suit. In the appeal, the High Court did not accept the agreement pleaded by the plaintiff, but granted a decree on the basis of the agreement set out in the written statement. It was held by a Bench comprising two learned Judges of this Court that the agreement pleaded by the defendant was wholly different from that pleaded by the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not plead either in the plaint or at any subsequent stage that he was ready and willing to perform the agreement pleaded in the written statement and hence, no decree on the basis of that agreement should have been passed in his favour as done by the High Court. The Court held that it was well settled that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff should allege that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and in the absence of such an allegation in the plaint, the suit is not maintainable. In our opinion, this case does not lend any support to the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent, as in the present case there is no question of any decree being passed on the basis of any agreement other than the one pleaded by the appellant in the plaint. Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. The appeal is allowed.
|