Continuous readiness and willingness to perform is mandatory for the grant of specific performance.

On 27.01.2003, the Plaintiff entered into an Agreement to Sell (“ATS”) with Mrs. Joginder Malik (predecessor-in-interest of the Defendant) for the purchase of a residential property in Safdarjung Development Area for ₹2.35 Crores

The Plaintiff paid ₹40 Lakhs as part consideration

Under Clause 2(b), the balance of ₹1.95 Crores was due by 15.05.2003 or within 45 days of the property being converted to freehold, whichever was later

The property was converted to freehold on 09.08.2003

Disputes arose regarding the intimation of conversion and demands for 12% interest for delayed payment

Mrs. Malik died on 02.03.2004, leaving the Defendant as the sole heir

The Plaintiff filed for specific performance in May 2004, alleging readiness and willingness, while the Defendant contended the Plaintiff lacked funds and breached the timeline

1. Whether the Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the contract?

2. Whether the Defendant was justified in rescinding the contract and forfeiting the sum of ₹40 Lakhs?

3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance?

Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which requires the plaintiff to aver and prove continuous readiness (financial capacity) and willingness (conduct) from the date of contract until the decree

Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi, which established that in urban properties with galloping inflation, time is increasingly treated as a material factor, and a purchaser cannot use the "time is not of the essence" doctrine to cover laches or lack of readiness

In the absence of an express forfeiture clause or proof of actual loss, advance money/part-payment cannot be forfeited

The Court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish "readiness" because he offered the balance consideration in fragmented installments through Pay Orders only starting in 2004, well beyond the 45-day window from the date he admittedly knew of the freehold conversion (07.10.2003)

Evidence from PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4 revealed the Plaintiff only began seeking loans/funds in early 2004, indicating he did not possess the funds at the contractually stipulated time

The Plaintiff’s refusal to pay the 12% interest stipulated in Clause 6(a) for delays evidenced a lack of "willingness"

While the Court held the ATS was validly rescinded due to the Plaintiff’s breach, it ruled against the Defendant on forfeiture. Since the ATS lacked a specific forfeiture clause and the Defendant admitted during cross-examination that no such clause existed, the ₹40 Lakhs was treated as part-payment rather than earnest money, necessitating its refund to prevent unjust enrichment

The Court partially decreed the suit by directing the Defendant to refund the part-sale consideration of ₹40,00,000/- to the Plaintiff. The refund is subject to 9% per annum simple interest, calculated from 22.11.2003 (the date the 45-day performance window expired) until the date of actual payment