Ongoing misuse of leasehold property and failure to prove financial readiness bars the relief of specific performance.

The respondent owned a plot in Wazirpur Industrial Area. In 1995, he executed Agreements to Sell (ATS) for 870 sq. yds. in favor of the three appellant brothers for a total consideration of ₹22.5 Lakhs

The appellants paid approximately 30% of the consideration but stopped monthly installments in February 1997, claiming the respondent failed to clear tax and electricity arrears

Meanwhile, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) cancelled the plot's lease due to industrial misuse

In 2004, the parties entered into a Court-recorded compromise: the respondent was to restore the lease and clear arrears, after which the appellants would pay the balance

The appellants prepared pay orders in 2004 but cancelled them months later

The respondent eventually withdrew his suits for declaration, but the appellants pursued counter-claims for specific performance, which the Trial Court dismissed in 2015

1. Whether the appellants were entitled to a decree of specific performance of the ATS dated 29.09.1995 and the Compromise dated 30.04.2004

2. Whether the appellants demonstrated continuous "readiness and willingness" to perform their contractual obligations under the Specific Relief Act

3. Whether the appellants were entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the respondent

The court applied the unamended Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, noting that the 2018 amendment is prospective and inapplicable to pre-existing transactions

Under Section 16(b), specific performance is barred if a party violates an essential term or acts in subversion of the intended relationship

Under Section 16(c), a plaintiff must aver and prove continuous "readiness" (financial capacity) and "willingness" (conduct) from the date of the contract until the decree

The court relied on N.P. Thirugnanam v. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, affirming that specific performance is an equitable, discretionary remedy requiring "blemishless" conduct

J.P. Builders v. A. Ramadas Rao, holding that readiness must be proved even if not specifically pleaded by the opponent

The court found the appellants breached the ATS by stopping installments in February 1997, well before the respondent’s deadline of March 1998 to clear arrears

Regarding "willingness," the court noted the appellants admitted to continuing the industrial misuse (steel fabrication) of the property, which legally prevented the respondent from fulfilling his obligation to restore the lease with the DDA under the 2004 compromise

Regarding "readiness," the appellants failed to provide bank statements, IT returns, or proof of funds to show continuous financial capacity

Their 2004 pay orders were cancelled within months and never revalidated or deposited in court

The court further clarified that mere admission of signatures on "Mutual Agreements" did not constitute proof of their contents since the respondent led no evidence to prove them

The High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Trial Court's judgment. Consequently, the prayer for permanent injunction was also denied as it was contingent upon the success of the claim for specific performance