Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)
Oskar Louis vs K.V. Saradha on 12 February, 1990 cites

Ouseph Varghese vs Joseph Aley & Ors on 18 August, 1969

5. Having understood the position thus let us see what are the essential facts that should be averred and proved by a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance to justify a Court in rendering a judgment in his favour. A suit for specific performance as observed by the Supreme Court in Useph Varghese v. Joseph, (1969) 2 SCC 539, has to conform to the requirements prescribed in Forms 47 and 48 of the First Schedule of the C.P.C. and it is well settled that in a suit for specific performance the plaintiff should allege that he was and has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. That means the fact that the plaintiff was and has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract sought to be enforced specifically, should be averred and proved by the plaintiff in order to get a judgment in his favour. It thus is mandatory that the plaint shall contain the allegation that the plaintiff has performed or has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 107 - Full Document

Mahmood Khan And Anr. vs Ayub Khan And Ors. on 22 May, 1978

6. The fact that the plaintiff has performed, or has been willing to perform his part of the contract, has not specifically been averred in the plaint and therefore the plaintiff with a view to strengthen the pleading, it is submitted, filed the petition for amendment of the plaint. His attempt in other words, was to have the said fact specifically incorporated in the pleadings, the counsel submits. Addition of this fact in my view, would not bring about a new cause of action. If that be the position, the argument of the learned counsel that very valuable right accrued to the second defendant on account of insufficient pleadings, would be taken away, if the amendment is allowed, is not sustainable, though the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Mahmood Khan v. Ayub Khan, AIR 1978 All 463 apparently supports his argument. According to the Allahabad High Court the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance shall not be allowed to amend the plaint and incorporate in the plaint the averment that the plaintiff has been willing to perform his part of the contract because such an amendment would help the plaintiff to bring out a cause of action in the plaint, which was conspicuous by its absence in the plaint originally filed. With respect, I cannot agree with this view. It should in this connection be noted that the requirement prescribed by Section 16(1)(c) of the Specific Relief Act can be highlighted only by pleading various essential facts including the above fact. The very fact that the suit is for specific performance is more than sufficient to presume that the plaintiff has pleaded some of the essential facts bringing out the cause of action and if that be so, the application seeking amendment of the plaint, incorporating another essential fact, cannot be said to be an attempt to bring out a cause of action which was conspicuous by its absence in the plaint originally filed. That is why the Supreme Court declared that "readiness and willingness cannot be treated as a straight-jacket formula. These have to be determined from the entirety of facts and circumstances relevant to the intention of the party concerned."
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 27 - R B Misra - Full Document

R. C. Chandiok & Anr vs Chuni Lal Sabharwal & Ors on 12 October, 1970

(See Ramesh Chandra Chandiok v. Chunni Lal, AIR 1971 SC 1238). In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the defendant has acquired any right. An amendment of the plaint in a suit for specific performance can, to my mind, be granted taking into account the entirety of the facts and the circumstances relevant to the intention of the party concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 241 - A N Grover - Full Document
1