Failure to prove readiness and willingness for contract performance precludes the relief of specific performance.

The Plaintiff (Respondent) and Defendant (Appellant) entered into an unregistered Sale Agreement (Ex-A.1) on December 20, 2010, for suit properties totaling Rs. 13,00,000/-.

The Plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 4,00,000/-.

Per the agreement, the Plaintiff was required to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- by April 30, 2011, and the balance of Rs. 6,00,000/- by April 30, 2012; failure to meet these deadlines would result in cancellation.

The Plaintiff paid Rs. 2,95,000/- only on February 25, 2012 (delayed by nearly 10 months) and deposited the final balance only in 2016 during the suit's pendency.

The Trial Court decreed specific performance in favor of the Plaintiff.

The Defendant appealed, contending lack of readiness and willingness.

1. Whether the Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as per Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act?

2. Whether the Suit is barred by limitation?

3. Whether the Plaintiff’s alleged possession of the suit properties can be protected under law?

The Court applied Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which mandates that a plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

It relied on J.P. Builders v. A. Ramadass regarding the necessity of proving financial capacity.

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was used to determine the timeframe for filing.

Regarding possession, the Court applied Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (as amended in 2001), which requires a registered document to claim the benefit of part performance.

The Court cited Bhinka v. Charan Singh regarding the inadmissibility of improperly issued revenue records.

Finally, Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act was noted regarding the necessity of a prayer for refund.

The Court found the Trial Court’s grant of specific performance erroneous because the Plaintiff failed the "readiness and willingness" test.

The Plaintiff breached the first payment deadline (April 2011) by nearly a year and provided no evidence of possessing the final Rs. 6,00,000/- during the contract period.

The two-year delay in filing the suit after the cause of action arose remained unexplained.

While the suit was within the three-year limitation period, the Plaintiff’s claim of possession via revenue receipts (Ex-A.2 and Ex-A.3) was rejected because the documents were either inadmissible or did not prove lawful possession under the amended Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, which requires registration.

However, since the Defendant admitted to receiving Rs. 7,00,000/- and expressed a moral willingness to refund it, the Court determined a money decree was equitable.

The Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled only to a refund of the advance amount.

The Defendant was ordered to pay Rs. 7,00,000/- with 6% simple interest per annum from the date of the suit until realization.

A charge was created over the suit properties to secure this payment.

The Plaintiff was also permitted to withdraw the balance sale consideration previously deposited in the Trial Court.

No costs were awarded.