Top News Headlines 27th Apr 2022: Details Of Funds In Possession Not Necessary To Be Pleaded In Suit For Specific Performance Of Sale Deed

Details Of Funds In Possession Not Necessary To Be Pleaded In Suit For Specific Performance Of Sale Deed: Mere Proof Of Capacity Sufficient: Kerala HC

• In Asha Joseph vs Babu C George the Kerala HC has held that in a suit for specific performance of a sale deed, if the plaintiff has not given the details of the funds in her possession, or the manner in which she intends to raise them, it shall not be fatal to the suit as these are matters of evidence and need not be pleaded. 
• In the instant case, the appellant/plaintiff had entered into a sale agreement in 2006 with the respondents, where they had agreed to sell the plaint scheduled property of 12.32 acres for a total sale consideration of Rs.55,44,000. On the date of the agreement, Rs.10,00,000 were paid in advance and the agreement was to execute the sale deed within three months. 
• The appellant contended that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract but the respondents were not. Thus, the appellant issued a notice through a lawyer and then filed the suit for specific performance, and in the alternative, the return of the advance money. 
• The respondents, on the other hand, contended that there was never any sale agreement between the parties and that it was executed as a security when the respondents had borrowed Rs.10,00,000 from the appellant. It looked like a sale agreement, but the parties never intended to act on the same. They also contended that they were forced to sign the agreement as the appellant had played a fraud upon them and had exercised undue influence and coercion. Thus, the respondents claimed that the agreement was void ab initio and was never binding on them. 
• The lower Court had partially decreed the suit by allowing the prayer for the return of the advance money, but disallowed the prayer for specific performance, as it disbelieved the case of the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant moved the HC.
• The Court observed that section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act mandates that the readiness and willingness have to be proved from the date of the contract to the date of the decree. It is necessary for the purchaser to show, in a suit for specific performance, that he was ready and willing to fulfill the terms of the agreement, and that he was willing to treat the contract as subsisting. 
• The respondents had argued that the plaint did not disclose the details of the funds in the possession of the appellant or how she intends to raise the necessary funds to pay the amount remaining. Since section 16(c) had not been complied, the appellant was hence not entitled to the relief of specific performance. 
• The Court observed that the appellant had approached and had requested the respondents to execute the deed in her favour, they had failed to perform their part of the contract. 
• The Court also observed that the claim has to be backed by the means to perform the appellants part of the contract, but she does not have to go jingling about her money to demonstrate that she had the capacity to pay the purchase price. All that needs to be done by her is to show that she is really willing to purchase the property when the time to do so comes, and she has the means to arrange for the payment of consideration. 
• The Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Nathulal vs Phoolchand AIR 1970 SC wherein it was held that to prove himself ready and willing, the purchaser need not produce the money or to vouch for a concluded scheme for financing the transaction. 
• The Court also observed that the explanation to section 16(c) clearly shows that the money needs to be produced only when directed by the Court. She only has to prove that she has the capacity to raise the necessary funds, which she had done through the testimony of the witnesses. 
• Thus, while setting aside the order of the lower Court, the appellant was granted the decree of specific performance relating to 2.22 acres of land out of the total 12.32 acres. 

Mizo Law: Natural Heir Not Taking Care Of Aged Parents Not Entitled To Inheritance: SC

• Contrary to most customary laws governing the inheritance in our country, the Mizo customary law stands out as being the one where a natural heir who does not take the responsibility of his aged parents, is not entitled to inherit their property. Moreover, a person who takes care of and supports a person till his death, could inherit the property of the deceased, even if a natural heir is present. 
• In the instant case of Smt. Kaithuami vs Smt. Ralliani the Apex Court has observed that under the Mizo customary law, inheritance depends upon the responsibility discharged by a legal heir to look after the elders in the family. 
• In this case, PS Dahrawka died in 1978, leaving behind his wife Kaithuami, his son Thanhnuna and seven daughters who were already married and living with their families. After his death, his youngest daughter Thansangi Huha divorced and came to live with her mother Kaithuami in January, 1997. The son, Thanhnuna had died in 1996, leaving behind his widow Ralliani and two daughters, Laldinpuii and Lalmuanpuii. 
• The District Court had held that the property of the deceased had to be divided between Thansangi Huha and Lalmuanpuii. It was found that since Thansangi Huha had discharged her responsibility to look after her mother till her death, her right to inherit her father’s property could not be defeated.
• The HC, on the other hand, held that it was only the daughters of Thanhnuna who were entitled to inherit the properties, to the exclusion of the appellants. Aggrieved, the present appeal was filed before the Apex Court. 
• It was contended before the Hon’ble Court that the HC had failed to consider that under the Mizo customary law it is not only the rights which are inherited, but also the responsibilities. The inheritance depends upon the discharge of these responsibilities towards the aged parents. 
• The Apex Court referred to the decision of the Gauhati HC in the case of Thansiami vs Lalruatkima and ors (2012) wherein it was held that inheritance depends upon the question as to whether the person supports the person in his old age or not. It was held that if a natural heir does not support his parents, he would not be entitled to inheritance. It was also held that even if there is a natural heir, a person who supports the person until his death could inherit the properties of that person. 
• Thus, the appeal was allowed and it was held that the HC was not justified in reversing the well reasoned judgement of the District Court. The decision of the District Court was thus confirmed. 

Time has come to provide better service conditions to Anganwadi Workers and Helpers: SC

• In Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod & Ors. (2022), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (“1972 Act”) will apply to Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) working in Anganwadi centres. 
• It also directed the concerned authorities of the Gujarat Government to take necessary steps for extending the benefits of the aforesaid Act to eligible workers.
• The court observed that social security legislations (like the 1972 Act) must always be interpreted liberally by giving the widest possible meaning to their provisions.
• Role of Anganwadi Workers
• The Anganwadi workers have played a vital role in our country’s war against malnutrition as well as during the COVID-19 pandemic. They have provided nutritional support to pregnant women, lactating mothers and children.
• Effective implementation of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the National Food Security Act, 2013 largely depends upon the Anganwadis. 
• The role of Anganwadi workers also includes assisting the Primary Health Centre Staff in the implementation of immunization programmes. 
• Furthermore, they act as a bridge between the Government and the targeted beneficiaries in delivering a large number of services.
• The Anganwadi Workers / Helpers have also been assigned the duty of conducting pre-primary education activities for the children. 

Problems faced by Anganwadi Workers

• Anganwadi Workers do not hold civil posts. So, they are deprived of regular salary & other benefits available to regular State Government Employees.
•  
• These workers only get a paltry ‘honorarium’, which is much lower than the minimum wages. The reasoning of the government behind this is that they are only part-time voluntary workers. 

Observations of the Court

• The State of Gujarat has laid down exhaustive provisions regarding selection criteria, duties, disciplinary action, rules, etc. in respect of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers through Government Resolution dated 25th November 2019. It has also framed the Anganwadi Worker / Helper (Selection Criteria, Honorary Service, Review and Discipline) Rules.
• After the passing of the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the framing of the aforesaid rules by the Government of Gujarat, it can no longer be said that the Anganwadi Workers/Helpers have temporary status. 
• So, the court held that it was no longer bound by the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka and others v. Ameerbi and others [2011 (11) SCC 681], for deciding the present appeal.
• The court observed that the job of AWWs and AWHs is full-time employment because several all-pervasive and onerous duties have been assigned to them.
• Anganwadi centres are establishments under Section 1 (3) (b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Furthermore, it was held that the honorarium paid to Anganwadi Workers/Helpers is covered by the definition of wages. So, these workers are employees of the State Government within the meaning of the 1972 Act. 
• Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeals and ultimately held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 will apply to Anganwadi centres and in turn to Anganwadi Workers and Helpers.