### Continuous Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Mandatory Despite Full Payment and Possession

The Appellant/Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 24/03/2007 regarding 2.30 hectares of agricultural land.

He alleged that the total consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid in cash, possession was delivered, and the original Rin-Pustika was handed over.

After the Respondent/Defendant No. 1 denied the transaction before the Tahsildar in 2009, the Plaintiff adjudicated the stamp duty (paying Rs. 49,450/-) and issued legal notices.

The Trial Court found the agreement was validly executed and consideration paid, but dismissed the suit on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to prove "readiness and willingness".

The Defendant filed cross-objections challenging the finding on delivery of possession.

1. Whether the Plaintiff established continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as mandated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

2. Whether an unregistered agreement to sell reciting full payment and delivery of possession can operate as a conveyance of title or support a decree for declaration of title.

3. Whether the Defendant's failure to enter the witness box warrants an adverse inference regarding the delivery of possession.

The Court applied Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which stipulates that continuous readiness and willingness is a condition precedent for specific performance.

It relied on N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, holding that readiness (financial capacity) and willingness (conduct) must be proved from the date of agreement until the decree.

Under Section 2(10) of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, an instrument transferring immovable property for consideration with delivery of possession is a "conveyance" requiring compulsory registration.

Per Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, immovable property can only be transferred via a registered deed; agreements to sell do not create title.

Finally, it applied Vidyadhar v. Manikrao regarding adverse inference against a party who abstains from the witness box.

The High Court affirmed that while the Plaintiff proved the execution of the agreement and payment of consideration, he failed the "readiness and willingness" test.

The Court reasoned that although the Plaintiff issued notices and paid stamp duty, he failed to plead or prove preparedness for the incidental expenses of drafting and registering the sale deed, such as notarization fees or administrative costs.

The Court noted that "readiness" is not a ritualistic formula but requires evidence of substantive financial and practical preparedness.

Regarding the claim for declaration of title, the Court held that since the agreement recited delivery of possession and full payment, it constituted a "conveyance".

Under Section 49 of the Registration Act, this unregistered document is inadmissible to affect immovable property or confer title.

However, the Court dismissed the Defendant's cross-objections because the Defendant failed to testify; thus, an adverse inference was drawn, upholding the Trial Court’s finding that possession had indeed been delivered to the Plaintiff.

It held that specific performance is a discretionary, equitable remedy that cannot be granted solely on the basis of a valid contract if the Plaintiff fails to demonstrate actionable preparedness to fulfill remaining obligations.

The Court further held that no declaration of title can be granted based on an unregistered agreement to sell.

The Trial Court’s judgment dismissing the suit for specific performance was upheld.

Portions of the Trial Court's findings in favour of the Plaintiff (execution and possession) were maintained due to the Defendant's failure to depose.