Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Suit for Specific Performance

The Supreme Court reinstated the Trial Judge's decision to dismiss the suit for specific performance, emphasizing the plaintiff's lack of readiness and willingness due to financial incapacity. The vague clause concerning the "no objection certificate" weakened the plaintiff's argument, leading to the High Court's judgment being set aside and the Trial Judge's decision being upheld. The plaintiff's failure to demonstrate financial capacity and continuous readiness and willingness throughout the contract period resulted in the appeal being allowed in favor of the defendants.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform the contract.
2. Obligation of the defendants to obtain a "no objection certificate."
3. Financial capacity of the plaintiff to pay the balance consideration.
4. Validity of the agreement to sell and its enforcement.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Readiness and Willingness of the Plaintiff to Perform the Contract:
The primary issue was whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement to sell. The Trial Judge found that the plaintiff was not ready and willing, citing his failure to deposit the balance sale consideration as required for an interim injunction. The High Court, however, reversed this finding, concluding that the defendants were unwilling to execute the sale deed. The Supreme Court reinstated the Trial Judge's view, emphasizing that the plaintiff's financial incapacity indicated his lack of readiness and willingness.

2. Obligation of the Defendants to Obtain a "No Objection Certificate":
The plaintiff argued that the defendants failed to obtain the necessary "no objection certificate" for the sale. The High Court supported this view, noting the defendants' inaction. However, the Supreme Court highlighted the vagueness of the clause in the agreement regarding the "no objection certificate," noting the lack of clarity about the nature, purpose, and authorities involved. This vagueness weakened the plaintiff's argument.

3. Financial Capacity of the Plaintiff to Pay the Balance Consideration:
The Trial Judge noted the plaintiff's insufficient financial resources, including his low income and bank balance, and his failure to arrange funds for the balance consideration. The High Court's contrary view was rejected by the Supreme Court, which agreed with the Trial Judge that the plaintiff lacked the financial capacity to perform his part of the contract. The Court referenced past judgments emphasizing the need for plaintiffs to demonstrate financial readiness and willingness throughout the contract period.

4. Validity of the Agreement to Sell and Its Enforcement:
The agreement to sell dated 29th May 1986 was scrutinized for its enforceability. The Trial Judge dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff's financial incapacity and lack of readiness and willingness. The High Court reversed this decision, granting specific performance and possession of the land to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court, however, found the High Court's reasoning flawed, particularly due to the plaintiff's financial incapacity and the vague clause regarding the "no objection certificate." Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and reinstated the Trial Judge's decision, dismissing the suit for specific performance.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's judgment emphasized the necessity for plaintiffs in specific performance suits to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness, supported by financial capacity. The vague contractual obligations regarding the "no objection certificate" further undermined the plaintiff's case. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, reinstating the Trial Judge's dismissal of the suit.

---