Readiness & Willingness Established: Supreme Court Grants Decree Of Specific Performance

The appeal before the Apex Court was directed against the final judgment of the Kerala High Court whereby the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant came to be dismissed, affirming the judgment rendered by the SubJudge, Chavakkad, in an Original Suit by which the suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell was dismissed.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “There is no dispute that pursuant to the last extension, the plaintiff-appellant paid the remaining sale consideration which was accepted by eight cosharers of the defendant-respondent and the partial sale deed to that extent, stood executed in his favour on 8th May, 2013. Thus, the issue of readiness and willingness was also wrongly decided against the plaintiff-appellant and in favour of the defendant respondent.”

Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The schedule property fell to the share of one Seethi Thangal , father of the respondent–Sakeena Beevi, by virtue of a registered partition deed. Pursuant to the death of Seethi Thangal, the plaint schedule property together with the school building standing thereon and all appurtenant improvements, including ownership and management of the school, devolved upon his nine children, including the defendant-respondent. All the nine legal heirs of Seethi Thangal executed an unregistered power of attorney in favour of the eldest son, Muhammed Rafi Thangal. Subsequently, the respondent executed a separate registered power of attorney in favour of her son Rasheeq Ahmed. The eldest brother, Muhammed Rafi Thangal, executed an agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff appellant.

The defendant respondent caused publication of a newspaper notice revoking the unregistered power of attorney issued in favour of Muhammed Rafi Thangal. Thereafter, the eight siblings executed a sale deed conveying their collective 10/11th share in the entire chunk of land on which the school building exists in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. As the defendant-respondent refused to execute the sale deed in respect of her share, the plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit for specific performance in the year 2013. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff–appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court, which ultimately dismissed the suit on the grounds of lack of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff-appellant to get the sale deed executed, as required under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as well as on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that if the publication of notice in the year 2012 for revocation of the unregistered power of attorney and the affidavit were cumulatively taken into account, the limitation would start running from the later date because it was at that stage, that the respondent-defendant finally refused execution of the sale deed to the extent of her share in the suit property. “In this backdrop, we are of the firm view that the issue of limitation was erroneously decided by the trial Court as well as the High Court, leading to an unjustified rejection of the suit instituted by the appellant”, it added.

The Bench held that the execution of the affidavit was not in dispute, and the period of limitation would commence from April 30, 2013. “We have no hesitation in holding that the suit was instituted within the prescribed period of limitation, reckoned from the date of the affidavit”, it stated.

As per the Bench, the issue of readiness and willingness was also wrongly decided against the plaintiff-appellant and in favour of the defendant respondent. The Bench held the plaintiff-appellant entitled to conveyance of the 1/11th share of the defendant– respondent in the plaint schedule property. Allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “By way of judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 3894 of 2022, we have granted the decree of specific 22 C.A. NO(S). 3894 OF 2025 & C.A. No. 3895/2022 performance in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. In view of the above decision, manifestly, the plaintiffappellant would have available to him the full tract of 3 acres land for running the school as required under the Kerala Education Rules, 2005.”

Cause Title: Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji v. Sakeena Beevi (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 35)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, AOR Mohammed Sadique T.A., Advocates Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, Devika A.l., AOR Nishe Rajen Shonker

Respondent: Senior Advocates Menaka Guruswamy, Nedumaran, AOR Jude James, Advocates Manas P. Hameed, Bhumika Yadav, Nishad L.S., AOR Harshad V. Hameed, Advocates Dileep Poolakkot, Ashly Harshad, Mahabir Singh

Click here to read/download Judgment