Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act | Readiness & Willingness Proven Despite Delayed Suit Filing: AP HC Upholds Specific Performance Decree

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in a second appeal concerning specific performance of an agreement of sale, reinforcing the principles under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, holding that the plaintiff had sufficiently demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations, despite the delayed filing of the suit. The judgment also underscores the strict procedural requirements for admitting additional evidence in appellate proceedings, particularly under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The case revolves around a dispute between the appellant, Smt. Sammeta Venkata Ramana (defendant in the original suit), and the respondent, Sammeta China Venkata Narayana (plaintiff in the original suit). The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 28.08.2006, wherein the defendant had allegedly agreed to sell Ac.1.00 cent of land out of a larger property (Ac.1.24 cents) for Rs.1,50,000/-. The plaintiff claimed to have paid Rs.30,000/- as advance on the date of the agreement and an additional Rs.5,000/- on 31.08.2006, with the balance of Rs.1,15,000/- due by 27.08.2007.

Key Facts

• 28.08.2006: Agreement of sale executed between the plaintiff and defendant for Ac.1.00 cent of land at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. The plaintiff paid Rs.30,000/- as advance on the same date.
• 31.08.2006: Plaintiff paid an additional Rs.5,000/- towards part sale consideration, evidenced by Ex.A-2.
• June 2007: Plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant to execute the sale deed but received no response.
• 18.06.2007: Plaintiff issued a legal notice (Ex.A-3) to the defendant demanding execution of the sale deed and deposited the balance sale consideration in his Savings Bank Account No.01170061470 with State Bank of India, Pedana Branch, to demonstrate financial readiness.
• 27.08.2007: Plaintiff filed O.S.No.211 of 2007 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, seeking specific performance of the agreement or, in the alternative, refund of Rs.35,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of the agreement.
• The defendant denied the execution of the agreement and receipt of any advance, alleging that the plaintiff had fabricated the document by obtaining her thumb impressions on blank stamp papers.

Procedural History

• 01.03.2016: Trial Court decreed the suit, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed within two months of receiving the balance consideration (Rs.1,15,000/-). In default, the plaintiff was granted liberty to execute the deed through court. The plaintiff was directed to pay the balance within two months.
• 23.02.2022: First Appellate Court (I Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam) dismissed A.S.No.68 of 2016, confirming the trial court’s decree.
• 01.04.2026: High Court admitted the Second Appeal No.205 of 2022 and framed three substantial questions of law.
• 15.06.2026: High Court dismissed the second appeal and I.A.No.3 of 2026 (for additional evidence), confirming the lower courts’ decrees.

The Parties' Positions

Plaintiff’s Case

• The plaintiff contended that the agreement (Ex.A-1) was validly executed, and he had paid Rs.35,000/- as advance sale consideration.
• He demonstrated readiness and willingness by issuing a legal notice (Ex.A-3) and depositing the balance amount in his bank account.
• The plaintiff examined P.W.1 (himself) and P.W.2 (the scribe of Ex.A-1), who corroborated the execution of the agreement and the payment of consideration.
• The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s denial of the agreement was false, as her husband (the first attestor) had signed Ex.A-1.

Defendant’s Case

• The defendant denied executing the agreement or receiving any advance, alleging fabrication by the plaintiff.
• She claimed that the plaintiff had obtained her thumb impressions on blank stamp papers under false pretenses.
• The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness, as he had not deposited the balance consideration in court or demonstrated financial capacity.
• During the second appeal, the defendant sought to introduce additional evidence (I.A.No.3 of 2026), including a registered sale deed dated 28.08.2006, allegedly proving her purchase of the entire Ac.1.24 cents on the same day as the disputed agreement.

Relief Sought

• Plaintiff: Specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 28.08.2006, or in the alternative, refund of Rs.35,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of the agreement.
• Defendant: Dismissal of the suit and the appeals, with costs.

The Legal Issue

The second appeal raised the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the lower courts erred in exercising discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, by decreeing specific performance despite the defendant’s denial of the agreement and lack of intention to sell?
2. Whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, given that he paid only Rs.35,000/- out of Rs.1,50,000/- and did not deposit the balance in court?
3. Whether the lower courts erred in not drawing an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for the plaintiff’s failure to examine the attestors of Ex.A-1, particularly when one attestor (the defendant’s husband) supported the defendant’s case?

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant/Defendant

• The defendant argued that Ex.A-1 was fabricated, as she had no intention to sell the property and had not received any advance.
• She contended that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, as he did not deposit the balance consideration in court or demonstrate financial capacity.
• The defendant relied on Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal to argue that the lower courts erred in not drawing an adverse inference for the plaintiff’s failure to examine the attestors of Ex.A-1.
• During the second appeal, the defendant sought to introduce additional evidence (registered sale deed dated 28.08.2006) to prove her ownership of the entire Ac.1.24 cents on the same day as the disputed agreement, arguing that it was improbable for her to sell the property immediately after purchase.

For the Respondent/Plaintiff

• The plaintiff argued that Ex.A-1 was validly executed, as evidenced by the testimony of P.W.2 (the scribe) and the thumb impressions of the defendant.
• He contended that he had demonstrated readiness and willingness by issuing a legal notice (Ex.A-3) and depositing the balance consideration in his bank account, as held in U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy.
• The plaintiff relied on Nirmala Anand v. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. to argue that the lower courts had correctly balanced the equities in decreeing specific performance.
• He opposed the defendant’s belated attempt to introduce additional evidence, arguing that it was not pleaded in the written statement or during trial and was an attempt to fill gaps in her case.

The Court's Analysis

The High Court conducted a detailed analysis of the evidence and legal principles governing specific performance and appellate procedure:

Proof of Agreement and Consideration

"The plaintiff, to prove Ex.A-1 agreement of sale, relied on the evidence of P.W.2 and his evidence is trustworthy. Moreover, the defendant herself admits that she has no disputes with the plaintiff."

The Court observed that the plaintiff had examined P.W.2, the scribe of Ex.A-1, who corroborated the execution of the agreement and the payment of Rs.30,000/- on 28.08.2006 and Rs.5,000/- on 31.08.2006. The defendant’s husband, who was the first attestor in Ex.A-1, had not been examined by the defendant to disprove the agreement. The defendant’s admission in cross-examination that she had no disputes with the plaintiff further weakened her case.

Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c)

The Court relied on U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy to hold that the plaintiff had sufficiently demonstrated readiness and willingness:

"To aver and prove readiness and willingness to perform an obligation to pay money, in terms of a contract, the plaintiff would have to make specific statements in the plaint and adduce evidence to show availability of funds to make payment in terms of the contract in time."

The plaintiff had issued a legal notice (Ex.A-3) on 18.06.2007, deposited the balance consideration in his bank account, and filed the suit on 27.08.2007 (the last date for performance). The Court held that these actions were sufficient to prove readiness and willingness, especially since the defendant had not disputed the plaintiff’s bank account details.

Adverse Inference Under Section 114(g)

The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s failure to examine the attestors of Ex.A-1 should have led the lower courts to draw an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the Court noted that the defendant’s husband, who was the first attestor, had not been examined by the defendant to disprove the agreement. The Court also observed that the defendant’s own admissions in cross-examination (e.g., denying her thumb impressions on the vakalatnama and written statement) indicated suppression of truth.

Rejection of Additional Evidence

The defendant sought to introduce additional evidence (I.A.No.3 of 2026) during the second appeal, including a registered sale deed dated 28.08.2006, allegedly proving her purchase of the entire Ac.1.24 cents on the same day as the disputed agreement. The Court rejected this application, relying on Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin:

"The general principle is that the appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the trial Court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, enable the appellate Court to take evidence in exceptional circumstances only."

The Court held that the defendant’s failure to plead or prove this fact during trial or in her written statement precluded its consideration at the appellate stage. The belated attempt to introduce the evidence was seen as an effort to fill gaps in her case.

Concurrent Findings of Lower Courts

The Court emphasized that second appeals under Section 100 of the CPC are limited to substantial questions of law and that concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts should not be interfered with unless perverse. The Court relied on Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann and Yadavarao Dajiba Shrawane v. Nanilal Harakchand Shah to hold that the lower courts’ findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.

The Verdict

The High Court dismissed Second Appeal No.205 of 2022 and I.A.No.3 of 2026, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2022 in A.S.No.68 of 2016. The Court directed:

1. The defendant (appellant) to execute the registered sale deed in favor of the plaintiff within two months of receiving the balance sale consideration (Rs.1,15,000/-).
2. In default, the plaintiff is at liberty to execute the sale deed through court.
3. The plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration (Rs.1,15,000/-) within two months.
4. Each party to bear their own costs in the second appeal.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Strict Scrutiny of Readiness and Willingness

• Courts will rigorously examine whether a plaintiff has demonstrated readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, particularly in cases involving delayed suit filing.
• Actionable Takeaways:
  • Plaintiffs must issue legal notices and demonstrate financial capacity (e.g., bank deposits) to prove readiness.
  • Mere payment of a partial amount may not suffice; plaintiffs must show continuous willingness to perform the contract.

Belated Evidence in Appellate Proceedings

• Appellate courts will strictly apply Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC to reject additional evidence not pleaded or proved during trial.
• Actionable Takeaways:
  • Parties must plead all material facts in their written statements and lead evidence during trial.
  • Belated attempts to introduce evidence in appeal will be viewed as filling gaps in the case and rejected.

Concurrent Findings in Second Appeals

• High Courts will rarely interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless they are perverse or based on misinterpretation of law.
• Actionable Takeaways:
  • Practitioners must challenge findings at the earliest stage (trial or first appeal) to avoid dismissal in second appeal.
  • Emphasis should be on legal errors rather than factual disputes in second appeals.