Ouseph Varghese v Joseph Aley

Facts

The plaintiff sued for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property, the existence and terms of which were disputed, and the question arose whether the plaint adequately set out the agreement and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform.

Issues

• Whether the plaintiff in a specific performance suit must set out the precise agreement the defendant refused to perform
• Whether the plaintiff must plead and prove that he has been and continues to be ready and willing to perform his part

Arguments

The plaintiff contended that the suit was maintainable on the pleadings as framed. The defendant contended that the plaint failed to set out a concluded agreement and did not properly aver the plaintiff's readiness and willingness, which was fatal to the claim.

Held

The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance must set out the agreement which the defendant has refused to perform and must plead that he has been and is still ready and willing to perform his part. Before a decree can be granted he must prove that readiness and willingness. Relying on Prem Raj v DLF Housing & Construction, the Court treated this as an essential ingredient of the cause of action, absent which the suit cannot succeed.

Ratio decidendi

Pleading and proof of a concluded agreement and of the plaintiff's continuous readiness and willingness to perform are mandatory ingredients of a suit for specific performance.

Significance

A foundational authority on the pleading and proof requirement under s 16(c) (pre-2018), repeatedly relied on in JP Builders and later cases; the pleading rigour was later softened by the 2018 amendment and decisions like Syed Dastagir, but the proof requirement endures.

Related