Readiness and willingness for specific performance may be inferred from pleadings, evidence, and conduct despite imperfect wording.

The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance concerning 0.47 hectares of land bearing Khasra No. 627 at Village Mordha, Mahasamund.

He alleged that the appellant-defendant executed an agreement to sell dated 28 August 2012 for ₹98,000, received the entire consideration, and delivered possession, but subsequently avoided execution and registration of the sale deed.

A legal notice was issued, followed by the suit for specific performance.

The defendant denied the agreement and alleged that his signatures had been obtained by fraud; alternatively, he claimed that the agreed consideration was ₹1,90,000, of which only ₹98,000 had been paid, and that possession had not been delivered.

The trial court framed issues regarding execution of the agreement, payment of consideration, delivery of possession, the defendant’s failure to execute the sale deed, and the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness.

It decreed the suit and directed execution of the registered sale deed within three months.

The defendant challenged the decree under Section 96 CPC.

Whether the plaintiff proved execution of the agreement to sell dated 28 August 2012, payment of ₹98,000 as the entire sale consideration, and delivery of possession of the suit property?

Whether the plaintiff had properly pleaded and proved continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

Whether, notwithstanding proof of the agreement and readiness and willingness, the discretionary relief of specific performance ought to be refused because of the passage of time and the alleged increase in the property’s value?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 96 CPC.

It applied Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which requires the plaintiff seeking specific performance to plead and prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract.

Relying on Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi, (2019) 3 SCC 709, the Court reiterated that specific performance is discretionary and equitable, requiring examination of the existence of a concluded contract, the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness, the extent of contractual performance, comparative hardship and equity, and the availability of alternative relief.

The Court also relied on Basavaraj v. Padmavathi, (2023) 4 SCC 239, to hold that an additional amount may be directed where the property’s value has substantially increased during litigation while still granting specific performance.

The Court found that the defendant’s signature on the agreement was no longer disputed.

The plaintiff, two attesting witnesses, and the notary consistently supported the execution of the agreement, payment of ₹98,000, and the arrangement that the sale deed would be executed after the defendant obtained the necessary revenue and loan-related documents.

The defendant’s alternative case that the consideration was ₹1,90,000 was not corroborated by independent evidence and was inconsistent with the testimony of the agreement witnesses.

Although the pleading regarding readiness and willingness was not ideally worded, the Court read the plaint as a whole and found that the plaintiff had asserted his readiness, had paid the entire consideration, repeatedly requested execution of the sale deed, issued a legal notice, and instituted the suit within approximately one year of the agreement.

These circumstances satisfied Section 16(c).

Applying the equitable principles governing specific performance, the Court held that the defendant’s untruthful defence and failure to execute the sale deed did not justify denying relief.

However, recognising the likely increase in the property’s value during the prolonged litigation, the Court directed payment of an additional ₹1,50,000 to the defendant before execution of the sale deed.

The findings that the agreement to sell was duly executed, the entire consideration of ₹98,000 was paid, possession was delivered, and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his obligations were affirmed.

The decree for specific performance was maintained, subject to the plaintiff paying an additional ₹1,50,000 to the defendant before execution of the registered sale deed.

The parties were directed to bear their respective costs, and the decree was ordered to be drawn accordingly.