Proof of financial capacity and proactive steps establish readiness and willingness for specific performance.

The appellants (plaintiffs) entered into a sale agreement with the deceased first respondent (defendant) on 23.10.1996 to purchase the suit property for ₹2,10,000/-

The plaintiffs paid a total of ₹60,000/- in installments and a prior mortgage of ₹10,000/- existed in their favor

The deadline for execution was 30.06.1997. The plaintiffs issued a legal notice on 25.06.1997 and a telegram on 30.06.1997, and were present at the Sub-Registrar’s Office on the final date; however, the defendant failed to appear

The Trial Court decreed specific performance in favor of the plaintiffs

The First Appellate Court reversed this, holding that time was of the essence and that the plaintiffs failed to prove readiness and willingness

1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that time was the essence of the contract in a sale of immovable property

2. Whether the appellants had sufficiently established their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act

3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in failing to provide reasons for its conclusions as mandated under Order 41 Rule 31 of the C.P.C.

The court applied Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which requires a plaintiff to aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract

It relied on the legal principle that in contracts for the sale of immovable property, there is no inherent presumption that time is the essence of the contract (referencing AIR 1993 SC 1942)

The court also applied Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 regarding the effect of failure to perform at a fixed time

Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing the contents of an appellate judgment

The High Court found that the First Appellate Court erroneously focused on the time stipulation without considering the plaintiffs' proactive conduct

The evidence established that the plaintiffs paid significant advance amounts leading up to the deadline, issued prompt legal notices, purchased stamp papers, and were physically present at the Sub-Registrar’s office

Regarding financial capacity, the Court noted that under Section 16(c), a plaintiff need not physically "jingle coins" or carry cash, provided they demonstrate the means to pay

The plaintiffs proved their capacity through Exhibit A12 (bank passbook) showing a balance of ₹95,150/- and evidence of other cash deposits and mortgage credits

Conversely, the defendant’s delay in replying and admitted intention to sell to third parties indicated a lack of bona fides

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court, restoring the Trial Court’s decree for specific performance. The respondents (legal heirs of the defendant) were directed to execute the sale deed upon receipt of the balance consideration