Specific performance of immovable property sale is denied if the plaintiff fails to prove continuous financial capacity.

The Appellants (purchasers) entered into two Agreements to Sell with the Respondents (joint owners) on 18th August 2005 for two interconnected properties in Jawahar Nagar, Delhi.

The total consideration was Rs. 1.68 Crores, with Rs. 18 Lakhs paid as advance.

The deadline for the balance payment and handing over possession was 31st December 2005.

The Appellants alleged that on 2nd December 2005, a handwritten endorsement was made on the Agreements extending the deadline to 28th February 2006.

The endorsement was signed by Respondent No. 2 and Kamal Rohra (son of Respondent No. 1).

The Respondents denied the extension, contending the signatures were merely to acknowledge receipt of photocopies and that Kamal Rohra had no authority to bind Respondent No. 1.

The Trial Court dismissed the suits for specific performance, holding that the extension was not proved and the Appellants lacked readiness and willingness.

1. Whether the time for performance was validly extended up to 28th February 2006 by the parties.

2. Whether time was of the essence of the Agreements dated 18th August 2005.

3. Whether the Appellants proved their continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.

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/intention) from the date of contract until the decree.

Principle from Janardan Das v. Durga Prasad Agarwalla regarding the requirement that all co-owners must personally execute or validly authorize an agent via Power of Attorney to bind them to property transactions.

Doctrine from Alagammal v. Ganesan and K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan, holding that while there is no general presumption that time is of the essence in immovable property sales, it can be inferred from express terms, the nature of the property, and surrounding circumstances.

The Court found the purported extension to 28th February 2006 invalid because Respondent No. 1 (co-owner) never signed the endorsement nor provided a written Power of Attorney to her son, Kamal Rohra, to act on her behalf.

Testimony from the Appellants admitted they knew Respondent No. 1 was a co-owner but failed to secure her written consent for the modification.

Regarding the "essence of time," the Court noted the Respondents had urgent financial liabilities (mortgage loans) and the Agreements contained strict forfeiture clauses (Clause 3), indicating that the 31st December 2005 deadline was material.

The Court held the Appellants failed the "readiness and willingness" test as deceased bank balances, the absence of the alleged Pay Orders on the judicial record, and the lack of documentary evidence regarding the availability of Rs. 1.50 Crores proved the Appellants lacked the financial capacity to complete the sale.

The unilateral endorsement by a non-owner (Kamal Rohra) could not bind the co-owner (Respondent No. 1).

The High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Trial Court’s judgments; status quo orders previously granted were vacated.