Supreme Court Refuses Specific Performance Of Property Deal; Says Buyer Must Prove Continuous Readiness And Willingness

The Supreme Court has reiterated that a person seeking specific performance of a property sale agreement must continuously demonstrate both financial readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations. The Court dismissed a long-pending appeal filed by the legal heirs of a purchaser, holding that mere filing of a suit within the limitation period does not automatically entitle a party to the equitable relief of specific performance.

A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N. V. Anjaria upheld a Karnataka High Court judgment that had set aside a trial court decree granting specific performance of a 1990 agreement to sell land in Mysuru.

The dispute arose from an agreement dated December 20, 1990, under which the respondent agreed to sell a vacant site for ₹3 lakh. The purchaser paid ₹25,000 as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed within four months upon payment of the balance consideration. However, disagreements subsequently emerged regarding the formation of an approach road, obtaining permission under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULCRA), and completion of the transaction.

The purchaser eventually filed a suit for specific performance in December 1993. The Trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the purchaser was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, the High Court reversed the decree, finding that the purchaser had failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness.

Affirming the High Court's view, the Supreme Court observed that "readiness" refers to the financial capacity to complete the transaction, while "willingness" relates to the conduct and intention of the party seeking specific performance. The Court emphasized that both requirements must be satisfied throughout the relevant period.

The appellants relied on Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) worth ₹2.8 lakh to demonstrate financial capacity. However, the Court noted that these FDRs were created years after the institution of the suit and therefore could not establish financial readiness during the crucial period between the execution of the agreement and the filing of the suit.

The Bench further held that the purchaser failed to cooperate in obtaining the mandatory ULCRA permission. Evidence on record showed that both parties were required to participate in securing the permission, but the purchaser did not furnish the necessary affidavits and documents. According to the Court, such conduct reflected a lack of continuous readiness and willingness.

Significantly, the Court also stressed that in suits for specific performance, delay can be fatal even if the action is filed within the statutory limitation period. The Bench observed that equitable relief requires promptness and diligence. In the present case, the seller had effectively refused to proceed with the transaction in April 1991, yet the purchaser waited nearly two years and nine months before filing the suit.

Holding that such unexplained delay undermined the claim for equitable relief, the Court concluded that the purchaser had failed to satisfy the twin statutory requirements of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's decision refusing specific performance was upheld.

Case Details:

Mohammed Khaleel (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. Jayamma,

Civil Appeal No. 2187 of 2011, decided on June 23, 2026.

Representation:-

For Appellant(s) :Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Sonakshi Banga, Adv., Mrs. Mansvini Jain, Adv., Mr. Sukant Vikram, AOR

For Respondent(s): Mr. P. R. Ramasesh, AOR, Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, Adv.