A purchaser seeking performance for a reduced property extent fails to prove readiness and willingness.

The parties executed Ext.A1, an agreement for sale dated 24 September 2012, covering two items stated to total 39.369 cents at ₹1,31,000 per cent. The plaintiff paid ₹20 lakh on execution and a further ₹15 lakh on 25 January 2013.

After the defendant repudiated the agreement, the plaintiff first filed a suit for injunction against alienation and later brought the present suit for specific performance. The trial court decreed specific performance. On appeal, the defendant challenged the decree, including on the grounds of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, absence of a prayer declaring the agreement subsisting, and the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness.

Whether the suit for specific performance was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC

Whether the suit was maintainable without a prayer for declaration that Ext.A1 continued to subsist after the defendant’s purported rescission

Whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform Ext.A1

Whether, in the circumstances, the court should exercise its discretion to grant specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

Order 2 Rule 2 CPC bars a later suit for an omitted relief where the requirements of the rule are met; the bar must be specifically pleaded and an issue framed for trial (Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal; Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta; Coffee Board v. Ramesh Exports Private Ltd.).

A party to a non-determinable agreement for sale may sue for specific performance despite the other party’s unilateral repudiation, without first seeking a declaration that the repudiation is invalid; a declaration is required where the contract permits unilateral termination (Annamalai v. Vasanthi; Manjunath K.S. v. Moorasavirappa).

Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act requires the plaintiff to plead and prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

Under Section 20, as applied in the judgment, the court’s discretion to grant specific performance must be exercised on legal principles and with regard to the circumstances of the case, not arbitrarily.

The Order 2 Rule 2 objection was not considered on its merits because the defendant had not pleaded the bar in the written statement and no issue had been framed, notwithstanding that the trial court had rejected the objection.

Ext.A1 contained no term permitting unilateral termination, so the defendant’s purported rescission did not require the plaintiff to seek a separate declaration before claiming specific performance.

However, the plaintiff asserted that only 35.55 cents were available, sought to pay consideration calculated on that reduced extent, and did not establish the alleged shortfall through a survey commission or other adequate evidence; his readiness and willingness to perform Ext.A1 as written was therefore not proved.

The court also relied on the plaintiff’s failure to substantiate the availability of the balance consideration and the unexplained delay in bringing the suit, among the circumstances weighing against specific performance.

Instead, it decreed the alternative claim for repayment of ₹20 lakh and ₹15 lakh, with interest at 12% per annum on each amount from its respective payment date until suit, 9% per annum thereafter until decree, and 6% per annum thereafter until realisation; proportionate costs were also awarded.