Readiness and Willingness Must Be Continuous and Proven Through Evidentiary Substantiation of Available Funds

The plaintiff (Respondent 1) filed a suit for specific performance against the defendant (Appellant) based on a registered agreement of sale dated 06.09.2012 for land measuring 5 acres 12 guntas

The total consideration was Rs. 92,00,000/-, of which Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid as advance, with the balance due within three months

The plaintiff alleged the defendant delayed execution due to property disputes (OS No. 139/2012) and executed a subsequent unregistered agreement on 22.06.2013

The defendant contended the transaction was a loan, the documents were concocted, and the suit was barred by limitation

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff

The defendant appealed, arguing a lack of "readiness and willingness" and that half the land had been acquired by the government

The court applied Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act (pre-2018 amendment), which mandates that a plaintiff must aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract from its inception until the decree

It adhered to the principles in U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy (2023), establishing that "readiness" refers to financial capacity and "willingness" to mental conduct

The court also relied on K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan (1997) and Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi (2011), which held that even if time is not the essence of a contract for immovable property, the court must apply strict scrutiny to delays and cannot ignore time limits stipulated in agreements

The Court found that while the plaintiff proved the execution of the agreement, he failed to demonstrate "readiness and willingness"

Critically, the balance consideration was Rs. 87,00,000/-, but the plaintiff’s bank records (Ex. P12) showed a balance of only Rs. 10,279/- until early 2016. Large sums were deposited only during the evidence stage in March 2016, nearly 3.5 years after the agreement’s three-month deadline

The Court observed that the plaintiff waited until the "fag end" of the limitation period to file the suit without explaining the delay

Furthermore, the second agreement of 2013 was not proved as no witnesses were examined

The Court held that the Appellate Court is a continuation of the original proceedings and must re-examine the plaintiff's financial capacity to ensure it remained consistent even after the Trial Court decree

The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s decree for specific performance. However, acknowledging that the defendant received Rs. 5,00,000/- and did not prove it was a loan, the Court ordered a refund of the advance amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of the agreement (06.09.2012) until realization. The appeal was allowed-in-part