Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Proved From Date of Agreement; Delay Can Defeat Specific Performance Claim: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal seeking enforcement of a decades-old property sale agreement, ruling that the purchaser failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness to complete the transaction. The Court also found that the delay in approaching the court weakened the claim for the equitable relief of specific performance.

Delivering the judgment, a bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria upheld the Karnataka High Court’s decision, which had overturned a trial court decree granted in favour of the purchaser.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from an agreement to sell executed on December 20, 1990. Under the agreement, the respondent agreed to sell a vacant site for ₹3 lakh. The purchaser paid ₹25,000 as earnest money, while the remaining ₹2.75 lakh was to be paid at the time of registration within four months.

According to the purchaser, several title documents were handed over after the agreement. The parties later exchanged legal notices regarding the completion of the sale, formation of an access road, and obtaining permissions under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

As the transaction did not materialise, the purchaser filed a suit for specific performance in 1993, seeking enforcement of the agreement and possession of the property. The trial court decreed the suit in 2002, holding that the purchaser had been ready and willing to perform his obligations. However, the High Court reversed that decision and dismissed the suit.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined whether the purchaser had fulfilled the legal requirement of proving continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

Explaining the principle, the bench observed that readiness refers to the financial capacity to complete the transaction, while willingness relates to the conduct and intention of the party seeking enforcement. Both elements must exist throughout the period relevant to the contract.

The Court noted that the purchaser relied on four fixed deposit receipts to show financial capability. However, those deposits had been created years after the suit was filed and therefore could not establish that sufficient funds were available during the relevant period.

“The availability of funds must be proved with reference to the relevant point of time and not by relying upon financial documents generated long after the filing of the suit,” the bench observed.

The Court further found that there was no evidence showing that the purchaser possessed the balance sale consideration either when the agreement was executed, during the four-month contractual period, or at the time of filing the suit.

On the issue of statutory permissions, the Court held that both parties were required to cooperate in obtaining clearance under the Urban Land Ceiling law. The record showed that the purchaser did not furnish the necessary affidavit and documents needed for that process.

“Such conduct clearly establishes that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove his continuous readiness and willingness,” the Court said.

Delay in Approaching the Court

The Supreme Court also considered the timing of the lawsuit. Although the suit was filed within the limitation period, the Court emphasized that a party seeking specific performance must act diligently and promptly.

The bench noted that the seller had clearly communicated refusal in April 1991. Despite that, the purchaser waited nearly two years and nine months before filing the suit in December 1993. According to the Court, this unexplained delay was inconsistent with the conduct expected from a party genuinely ready to complete the transaction.

The judgment reiterated that merely filing a suit within the statutory limitation period does not automatically entitle a party to specific performance, which remains a discretionary and equitable remedy.

Decision

After reviewing the evidence and the parties’ conduct, the Supreme Court concluded that the purchaser had failed to establish both readiness and willingness as required under the Specific Relief Act.

The bench held,

“The appellants not only failed to demonstrate their readiness and willingness but also failed to approach the Court with quite promptitude, which disentitle them from grant of the equitable relief of specific performance.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision refusing specific performance of the property sale agreement.

Case Details

Case Title: Mohammed Khaleel (D) Through LRs & Ors. v. Jayamma

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2187 of 2011

Judges: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria

Decision Date: June 23, 2026