1968 (4) TMI 78 - SC - Indian Laws

Plaintiff's Failure to Allege Readiness Leads to Dismissal

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 ... Alternative reliefs - specific performance - rescission of contract - undue influence - readiness and willingness to perform - cause of action - jurisdictional error/material irregularity in revision under s. 115 CPCAlternative reliefs - specific performance - rescission of contract - Whether a plaintiff who sues for rescission (or a declaration that a contract is void) on the ground of undue influence can, in the same suit and in the alternative, claim specific performance of the same contract. - HELD THAT: - Order 7 Rule 7 CPC permits pleading alternative and inconsistent reliefs, but each pleaded relief must be maintainable on law. The Specific Relief Act contemplates only a plaintiff who sues for specific performance to pray alternatively for rescission (s. 37): i.e., specific performance may be followed by rescission if the Court refuses enforcement. The converse-suing for rescission (or to have a transaction set aside for fraud/undue influence) and alternatively claiming specific performance-is not provided by the Act and is thereby not open to the plaintiff. Authorities and text (including Fry and decisions cited) support the rule that a suit to set aside for fraud or undue influence cannot properly be maintained in the alternative with a prayer for specific performance of the disputed transaction, as the claims are inconsistent and would be embarrassing to the Court.A plaintiff suing for rescission or to declare a contract void for undue influence cannot, in the same suit and in the alternative, maintain a claim for specific performance of that contract.Specific performance - readiness and willingness to perform - cause of action - Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action for specific performance in the absence of an averment of continuous readiness and willingness to perform. - HELD THAT: - A suit for specific performance requires an averment that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; this requirement has been recognized under Indian law as equivalent to the English rule. Where the plaint alleges that the contract was induced by fraud or undue influence and seeks to have it declared void, it does not-and here did not-contain the necessary averment of readiness and willingness to perform. In the absence of such an averment, there is no cause of action for specific performance.The plaint did not disclose a cause of action for specific performance because it lacked the requisite averment of readiness and willingness to perform.Jurisdictional error/material irregularity in revision under s. 115 CPC - cause of action - Whether the High Court could, in revision under s. 115 CPC, set aside the trial court's order allowing the alternative claim for specific performance. - HELD THAT: - The trial court's permissive view that the plaintiff could, in the alternative, claim specific performance involved an error of law which affected the trial court's jurisdiction to grant that relief. An erroneous legal conclusion as to the availability of a particular relief amounts to material irregularity or illegality in exercise of jurisdiction, thereby justifying interference in revision under s. 115 CPC. Consequently the High Court was competent to reverse the trial court's order on that question.The High Court rightly interfered in revision: the trial court had committed an error of law affecting its jurisdiction to entertain the alternative claim for specific performance.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff cannot plead rescission (or a declaration of voidness for undue influence) and in the same suit, in the alternative, seek specific performance; further, the plaint lacked the essential averment of readiness and willingness to perform, and the High Court properly set aside the trial court's order in revision. 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.