Is a mere averment of readiness and willingness sufficient under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

No. As per the explanation to Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the plaintiff need not jingle his coins, yet he has to establish his readiness and willingness throughout to perform his part of the contract by producing either his bank statement or any other document. Mere averment is not sufficient to prove readiness and willingness, and one who seeks the equitable relief of specific performance must come to the Court with clean hands.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.91 — s.92 — Specific Relief Act, 1963 — s.16 — s.20 — Sale Agreement as security for a loan transaction — Readiness and willingness — Discretionary relief — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — ss.91 and 92 — Sale Agreement — Plea of an altogether different transaction — Held: Where a party attacks the very nature of the document by contending that it was executed for altogether a different transaction, Sections 91 and 92 do not stand as a bar, though he cannot vary its terms in other aspects. (¶16, 18) Specific Relief Act, 1963 — s.16 — Readiness and willingness — Mere averment is not sufficient — Held further: Under the explanation to Section 16 the plaintiff need not jingle his coins, yet must establish readiness and willingness throughout by producing his bank statement or any other document. Mere averment is not sufficient, and one seeking this equitable relief must come with clean hands. (¶23, 24) Specific Relief Act, 1963 — s.20 — Discretionary relief — 2018 Amendment is prospective — Held further: Under Section 20 as it stood before the 2018 Amendment specific performance is a discretionary relief, and may be denied even where the nature of the document is proven to be true. The amendment is prospective in nature. (¶26) Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Alternate relief — Return of advance amount must be prayed for — Held further: The alternate relief of return of the advance amount cannot be granted unless prayed for in the plaint, but where the defendant himself agrees to return it a money decree may be passed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Appeal Suit allowed in part. (¶27, 29)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of V.Govindasamy v. S.Natarajan — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India