Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

JUGRAJ SINGH AND ANR. versus LABH SINGH AND ORS.

Decided
28 November 1994
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 168 · 1994 INSC 557
Also cited as
  • (1995) 2 SCC 31 (15 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1995 SC 945 (14 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1995 SCW 901 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 6 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The petitioners are defendants 2 and 3. The first defendant-Jasbir Singh had executed ·an agreement of sale dated 30-8-1984 in favour of the plaintiffs Labh Singh and his brother Surinder Singh. The petitioners had an agreement of sale on 4-1-1985. The plaintiffs filed the suit against Jasbir Singh, the first defendant. All the courts have concurrently found that the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 are not bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the prior agreement dated 30-8-84 and accordingly, decreed the suit. Thus, this S.L.P.

p. 169, margin E

It is contended for the petitioners that the trial court having found the petitioners to be necessary parties was not right in negativing the plea of the petitioners that Labh Singh - plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the High Court equally committed an error of law in rejecting that plea. We find no force in the contention.

p. 169, margin F

Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the plaintiff must plead and prove that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the essential terms of the contract. The continuous readiness and willingness at all stages from the date of the agreement till the date of the hearing of the suit need to be proved. The substance of the matter and surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the plaintiff must be taken into consideration in adjudging readiness and willingness to perform the plaintiffs part of the contract.

pp. 169–170, margin G

The Privy Council in Ardeshir R. Rama v. Flora Sasson, AIR (1928) P.C. 208 has held that in a suit for specific performance the averment of readiness and willingness on plaintiffs part upto the date of the decree is necessary.

p. 170, margin B

This Court in Gomathinavagam Pillai and Ors. v. Palaniswami Nadar, AIR (1967) SC 868 quoting with approval Ardeshir's case (supra) had held as follows:

p. 170, margin B

"But the respondent has claimed a decree for specific performance and it is for him to establish that he was, since the date of the contract, continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. If he fails to do so, his claim

p. 170, margin C

for specific performance must fail."

p. 170, margin D

That plea is specifically available to the vendor/defendant. It is personal to him. The subsequent purchasers have got only the right to defend their purchase on the premise that they have no prior knowledge of the agreement of sale with the plaintiff. They are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. Though they are necessary parties to the suit, since any decree obtained by the plaintiff would be binding on the subsequent purchasers, the plea that the plaintiff must always be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract must be available only to the vendor or his legal representatives, but not to the subsequent purchasers. The High Court, therefore, was right in rejecting the petitioners' contention and rightly did not accept the plea. We do not find any ground warranting interference.

p. 170, margin D

The S.L.P. is accordingly dismissed. G.N Petition dismissed.

p. 170, margin F