1968 (4) TMI 78 - SC - Indian Laws

Plaintiff's Failure to Allege Readiness Leads to Dismissal

Prem Raj Versus D.L.F. Housing & Construction

The court held that a plaintiff cannot claim specific performance of a contract while also seeking a declaration that the same contract is void due to ... - Issues:1. Whether a plaintiff can claim specific performance of a contract while also seeking a declaration that the same contract is void due to undue influence.Detailed Analysis:The case involved a dispute where the appellant entered into various agreements related to the purchase and development of lands. Subsequently, the appellant sought to repudiate these agreements, claiming they were void due to undue influence. The appellant also sought specific performance of one of the agreements. The primary issue was whether the appellant could claim specific performance while also alleging that the contract was void. The court examined the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and relevant legal principles to determine the permissibility of such alternative claims. It was established that while a plaintiff suing for specific performance could alternatively seek rescission of the contract, the reverse was not permissible. The court cited legal precedents and emphasized that the plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract for a specific performance claim to be valid.Furthermore, the court highlighted the necessity of the plaintiff alleging readiness to perform the contract in a specific performance claim. In this case, as the appellant failed to make such an averment and instead alleged fraud and undue influence, the court held that the appellant lacked a cause of action for specific performance. The court underscored that the commencement of an action for damages indicated the election to treat the contract as terminated, precluding a subsequent claim for specific performance. The court aligned the Indian law on specific performance with English law, emphasizing the essential requirement of readiness and willingness to perform the contract.Additionally, the court addressed the argument that the High Court should have allowed the appellant to choose between the two reliefs sought. The court rejected this argument, stating that such an election would only be relevant if the appellant had a valid cause of action for specific performance, which was not the case. The court emphasized that the absence of a cause of action for specific performance precluded the appellant from being put to an election between the alternative reliefs.Lastly, the court examined the jurisdictional aspect of the High Court's intervention in the trial court's decision. It was determined that the trial court's error in allowing the alternative claim for specific performance constituted a material irregularity, justifying the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction. The court concluded that the High Court was within its authority to overturn the trial court's decision on the question of specific performance. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's ruling and emphasizing the legal principles governing claims for specific performance in the presence of allegations of contract voidability due to undue influence.