J.P. Builders v A. Ramadas Rao

Facts

In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, the court examined the distinct meanings of 'readiness' and 'willingness' under section 16(c) and whether the plaintiff had satisfied both the financial-capacity and conduct dimensions of the requirement.

Issues

• The distinction between 'readiness' and 'willingness' under section 16(c)
• Whether both elements are mandatory and must be established by the plaintiff seeking specific performance

Arguments

The plaintiff contended he had both the capacity and the genuine intention to perform and was entitled to a decree. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had not established the financial capacity (readiness) and the conduct (willingness) required by the statute.

Held

The Supreme Court drew the distinction that 'readiness' refers to the plaintiff's financial capacity, while 'willingness' refers to his conduct, and that generally readiness is backed by willingness. Both are essential and, being the mandate of the statute, must be pleaded and proved by the plaintiff. The Court reaffirmed (relying on Ouseph Varghese) that this obligation subsists even where the defendant has not appeared, not filed a written statement, or led no evidence.

Ratio decidendi

Under section 16(c), 'readiness' (financial capacity) and 'willingness' (conduct) are distinct but conjoint mandatory requirements; both must be proved by the plaintiff irrespective of the defendant's stance.

Significance

The standard modern authority articulating the readiness/willingness distinction, routinely cited for the financial-capacity-versus-conduct dichotomy and reaffirming the mandatory nature of the s 16(c) requirement.

Related