NAGARAPU KANAKAIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of an sale, dated 27-2-1984 executed by the Is defendant on behalf of his minor son D-2 for Rs. 1, 31,250/- in respect of the plaint schedule property or in the alternative for recovery of damages for Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Subordinate Judge after having felt that many fictitious, false and vexatious suits for specific performance of contracts are being filed as a counterblast to some other cases pending in some other courts, directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance of consideration of about Rs. 1,25,000/-. The counsel for the plaintiff also conceded before the Subordinate Judge that it is the discretion of the court to direct deposit of the balance of sale consideration into court at any stage. Against that order directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance of the sale consideration, the plaintiff filed the present revision Petition.

(2.) Sri Kanyaka Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the stage for directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance of consideration will arise only in the event of the defendant's objection that the plaintiff has no capacity to pay the amount. Prior to the amendment, the Law was that there must be an allegation in the plaint that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In view of the legal position that has been emerged from the decisions of the various High Courts and the Supreme Court. Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act has been amended.

(3.) Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act makes it obligatory for the plaintiff to aver in the plaint and also to prove that he has performed or has always been ready to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him.