Specific performance of registered agreement to sell is mandatory post-2018 amendment to Specific Relief Act.

The plaintiff (respondent) filed a suit for specific performance based on a registered agreement to sell dated 30.12.2019 regarding a two-storeyed house

The total consideration was ₹30 lakhs, with ₹20 lakhs paid as earnest money via cheque

The defendant (appellant) denied executing the agreement, alleging it was a fraudulent document obtained by exploiting a business relationship involving silver trading

The defendant further claimed the earnest money was actually payment for business transactions/labour charges and that the property was undervalued

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff on 11.03.2025

1. Whether the defendant executed a valid registered agreement to sell and received the earnest money consideration

2. Whether the plaintiff continuously remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as per Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act

3. Whether the relief of specific performance remains discretionary following the 2018 Amendment to the Specific Relief Act

The court applied Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which mandates the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness (financial capacity) and willingness (conduct)

It relied on the amended Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act (w.e.f. 01.10.2018), noting that specific performance is now a mandatory rather than discretionary relief

The court utilized the "best evidence rule" under Section 91 of the Evidence Act regarding written contracts

Presumption of validity for registered documents established in Prem Singh v. Birbal and Hemalatha v. Tukaram

The Court found the agreement was duly registered with the defendant’s digital photograph and thumb impression, creating a high presumption of genuineness that the defendant failed to rebut with cogent evidence

Regarding consideration, the Court noted the ₹20 lakh payment originated from the plaintiff’s personal savings account, not a firm account, contradicting the defendant's claim that it was a business transaction

On readiness and willingness, the Court determined the plaintiff maintained a bank balance exceeding the required ₹10 lakh and sent timely legal notices

Relying on Syed Dastagir v. T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty, the Court held that "readiness and willingness" must be judged in spirit and substance rather than through mechanical adherence to specific forms

The Court observed that since the agreement was dated post-2018, the mandatory enforcement rule under the amended Section 10 applied

The Court ordered the defendant to execute the sale deed within two months upon receipt of the balance ₹10 lakhs; failing which, the plaintiff may seek execution through the Court

The Court concluded that the relief was mandatory under the post-2018 legal framework and the plaintiff had satisfied all statutory requirements