A purchaser must prove financial capacity and continuous readiness to obtain specific performance.

On 26 October 2016, the plaintiff agreed to purchase agricultural land from defendant No. 1 for ₹27,75,000, paid ₹2,00,000 as earnest money, and was to pay the balance in December 2016, with the sale deed to follow after demarcation and completion of formalities.

The plaintiff alleged that he later discovered the land was mortgaged and that defendant No. 1 failed to provide the necessary clearance; the land was subsequently gifted to defendant No. 2 and sold by him to defendant No. 3.

The plaintiff sought specific performance and declarations invalidating the gift and sale deeds, but did not seek refund of the earnest money.

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff had not established readiness and willingness.

The plaintiff appealed under Section 96 CPC.

Whether the plaintiff established that he was ready and willing to perform his contractual obligations, as required for specific performance

Whether the omission to frame a separate issue on readiness and willingness prejudiced the plaintiff or required remand

Whether the Court could grant refund of the earnest money when that relief was not claimed

The Court applied Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as it stood before the 2018 amendment, requiring a plaintiff seeking specific performance to plead and prove that he had performed, or had continuously been ready and willing to perform, the essential contractual terms.

Readiness concerns the plaintiff’s capacity—including financial capacity—to perform; willingness is assessed from conduct and surrounding circumstances.

A stipulated date in a contract for sale of immovable property does not by itself make time essential, but the dates remain relevant to assessing continuous readiness and willingness.

Under Section 22 of the Act, refund of earnest money must be specifically claimed, though the plaint may be amended to seek that relief; it cannot ordinarily be granted suo motu [*Desh Raj v. Rohtash Singh*, (2023) 3 SCC 714; *K.R. Suresh v. R. Poornima*, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1014].

Omission to frame a specific issue does not automatically invalidate a trial where the parties knew the matter was in controversy and had an opportunity to lead evidence; prejudice is the relevant test [*Sayeda Akhtar v. Abdul Ahad*, (2003) 7 SCC 52].

The Court accepted that the mortgage and the vendor’s alleged failure to secure clearance could explain why the transaction was not completed within the initially contemplated period; nevertheless, those circumstances did not relieve the plaintiff of proving his own readiness and willingness.

The plaintiff relied principally on his assertion that funds were available, but produced no evidence of funds in hand or a concrete arrangement to raise the balance of ₹25,75,000.

The Court therefore held that continuous financial readiness was not established, notwithstanding the defendants’ subsequent transfers and the criminal proceedings concerning defendant No. 1.

The omission to frame a separate issue caused no demonstrated prejudice because both sides pleaded and led evidence on the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness.

Since refund was neither pleaded nor added by amendment, Section 22 precluded the Court from awarding it on its own motion.

It also declined to order refund of the ₹2,00,000 earnest money because that relief had not been claimed.

The appeal was dismissed, the trial court’s judgment and decree were affirmed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.