Adequacy of consideration and continuous readiness established through major advance payment warrant a decree for specific performance.

The Plaintiff (Respondent) filed a suit for specific performance based on a registered sale agreement dated 17.06.1998 for agricultural land

The total consideration was Rs.1,50,000/-, of which Rs.1,25,000/- was paid as advance, with the balance due in one year

The Defendant (Appellant) denied execution, alleging forgery and undervaluation

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently decreed the suit, relying on expert evidence (P.W.4 P.W.5) and the testimony of the attesting witness (P.W.2) and scribe’s son (P.W.3)

During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the executing court executed the sale deed and ordered delivery of possession, leading to the Civil Revision Petition

1. Whether the Plaintiff proved continuous readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act given the one-year period to pay a small balance

2. Whether the agreement was void for uncertainty regarding property identification/boundaries

3. Whether the contract granted the Plaintiff an unfair advantage under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act due to alleged inadequacy of price

4. Whether the executing court erred in ordering delivery to subsequent purchasers without leave of court

The Court applied Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (unamended), requiring the Plaintiff to plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness

Section 20 was applied regarding the judicial discretion to grant specific performance, noting that inadequacy of consideration alone is not a ground to refuse relief

Evidence Law (Section 45) was cited regarding the admissibility of private expert testimony

For execution, the Court applied Order 21 Rule 16 and Section 146 of the CPC regarding the rights of transferees/subsequent purchasers

The principle from High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) regarding the non-automatic lapse of interim stay orders

The Court found the Defendant’s plea of forgery unsubstantiated as the agreement was registered and the expert evidence (P.W.4 P.W.5)—obtained with the Defendant’s consent and based on specimen signatures given in open court—confirmed common authorship

The Plaintiff demonstrated readiness and willingness by paying 83% of the price upfront and issuing a legal notice (Ex.A.2) within the stipulated time

Regarding the lack of boundaries, the Court held that identification by survey numbers and specific extent was sufficient for agricultural land

On the issue of unfair advantage, the Court noted the Defendant failed to produce any documentary evidence (e.g., guideline registers) to prove the alleged market value of Rs.4,00,000/-, making the Section 20 defense untenable

In the Revision, the Court held that subsequent purchasers had locus standi to seek possession alongside the decree-holder under Section 146 CPC

The High Court dismissed both the Second Appeal and the Civil Revision Petition