Specific performance denied where purchaser fails to prove continuous readiness and financial capacity to pay balance consideration.

The plaintiff (appellant) entered into an agreement to sell dated 25.03.1999 with the defendants (respondents/builders) for a flat in "Amit Apartments," Solan, for a total consideration of Rs. 13,00,000.

The plaintiff paid Rs. 3,30,000 as earnest money and was to pay the balance of Rs. 9,70,000 on or before 30.06.1999 upon execution of the sale deed and delivery of possession.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to complete construction (including wood work, lift installation, and utilities) despite requests.

The defendants contended the flat was complete by 31.07.1999, save for the lift due to tenant litigation, and that the plaintiff sought excessive alterations and lacked the funds to pay the balance.

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit only for recovery of the earnest money with interest, denying specific performance.

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

2. Whether the defendants committed a breach of contract by failing to complete the construction within the stipulated time?

Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which mandates that a plaintiff must aver and prove continuous readiness (financial capacity) and willingness (conduct) to perform the contract.

N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao (1995): The court must judge conduct and availability of funds from the date of execution til the decree.

Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi (2011): Significance of time stipulations in property contracts due to rising prices.

Mankour v. Hartar Singh Sangha (2010): Even if a defendant breaches, the plaintiff must still prove their own readiness/willingness to succeed.

The High Court observed that while the agreement required the balance payment by 30.06.1999, the plaintiff never appeared before the Sub-Registrar with the funds by that date.

Even during the suit, the plaintiff purchased stamp papers for a value of Rs. 10,00,000 instead of the agreed Rs. 13,00,000 and offered no valid explanation for this discrepancy.

Regarding the construction, the court noted through expert reports (Ex. PW-3/A and Ex. DW-2/A) that the defendants had completed the "major part" of the flat, and the remaining items were minor and did not justify the plaintiff withholding the entire balance.

The plaintiff's loan was only sanctioned in 2002—three years after the deadline—and was never actually availed, indicating a lack of financial readiness at the material time.

The court affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, denying the decree for specific performance and upholding only the recovery of the earnest money (Rs. 3,30,000) with 9% interest. The appeal was dismissed.