Buyer Who Stayed Silent Nearly Two Years And Couldn’t Show Funds Loses Bid To Force Property Sale; Karnataka HC Upholds ₹2.5 Lakh Refund

The plaintiff sued for specific performance of a registered sale agreement dated 8 June 2011, under which the defendants agreed to sell the suit property for ₹7,50,000 and acknowledged receipt of ₹2,50,000 as advance.

The agreement did not fix a completion date and required the defendants to obtain a survey sketch and other records.

The trial court found execution of the agreement and payment proved, but rejected specific performance for want of proof of readiness and willingness and on comparative-hardship grounds; it instead ordered refund of ₹2,50,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit.

The plaintiff’s appeal challenging refusal of specific performance was dismissed, and the refund decree was not challenged.

In the second appeal, the High Court noted that the plaintiff had not shown steps to perform the contract between the agreement and his first notice of 26 July 2013, or produced evidence of funds or capacity to raise the balance consideration.

Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as applicable to the transaction, requires a plaintiff seeking specific performance to plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract.

Readiness concerns financial capacity; willingness is assessed from the plaintiff’s conduct and intention.

The requirement continues from the agreement through the relevant proceedings, and the plaintiff must establish the availability of the balance consideration or the capacity to arrange it.

Specific performance is an equitable and discretionary remedy; under Section 20, as referred to in the judgment, it is not granted merely because a valid agreement is proved.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s discussion in Mohd Khaleel (D) through LRs. & Ors. v. Jayamma, 2026 INSC 651, and the principles in N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao concerning continuous readiness and willingness and proof of financial capacity.

Under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal does not warrant interference with concurrent factual findings absent a substantial question of law.

The agreement’s lack of a fixed completion date and its provision that the defendants obtain the survey sketch did not relieve the plaintiff of his independent obligation to prove readiness and willingness.

The plaintiff remained inactive for about two years before issuing the first notice, and, after receiving the defendants’ denial, did not promptly take further action; his assertion that he had made personal requests was unsupported by evidence.

He also produced no reliable evidence that he had the ₹5,00,000 balance consideration or could arrange it.

The defendants’ reciprocal obligation to obtain documents could not, without such proof, establish the plaintiff’s readiness.

The High Court further found that the trial and first appellate courts had assessed the evidence and comparative hardship, and that the plaintiff’s challenge disclosed no substantial question of law.

Finding no substantial question of law, it dismissed the second appeal and confirmed the concurrent judgments.

The unchallenged decree for refund of ₹2,50,000 with 6% annual interest remained in force; the trial-court registry was directed to release the deposited sum of ₹3,83,750 to the plaintiff.