Specific performance plaint rejected for failing to demonstrate a concluded oral agreement and financial readiness.

The Appellant (Plaintiff) instituted a suit seeking specific performance of an alleged oral Agreement to Sell (ATS) dated 29.10.2023 regarding a property in Vasant Vihar for Rs. 12.40 crores

The Appellant paid Rs. 51 lakhs as earnest money, acknowledged by a receipt, but no formal written contract was signed

The Appellant alleged the Respondent failed to deliver vacant possession by the agreed dates, leading to extensions until 29.02.2024

On 16.03.2024, the Respondent terminated the oral agreement alleging delay and refunded the earnest money

The learned Single Judge rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, holding that the Appellant failed to demonstrate financial capacity (relying only on an unsanctioned loan eligibility letter) and that the suit lacked a cause of action under Sections 16(b) and 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

1. Whether the plaint and supporting documents disclosed a real and enforceable cause of action or were merely the result of "clever drafting" to create an illusion of a claim.

2. Whether the parties had entered into a concluded and enforceable contract capable of specific performance.

3. Whether the Appellant demonstrated continuous readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations as required under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act.

The court applied Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which mandates the rejection of a plaint if it does not disclose a cause of action; per T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, the court must perform a "meaningful" rather than "formal" reading to nip meritless suits in the bud

Under Sections 16(b) and 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract

Regarding oral agreements, the court relied on Mayawanti v. Kaushalya Devi, establishing that specific performance requires a valid, definite, and enforceable contract with certain terms

Furthermore, per K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan, time is of critical importance in immovable property transactions in metropolitan cities where prices escalate rapidly

The Court observed that the document dated 29.10.2023 was a unilateral acknowledgment of money rather than a bilateral, concluded contract, as it lacked the Appellant’s signature and essential terms

WhatsApp communications exchanged as late as November 2023 proved that the parties were still negotiating terms, contradicting the claim of a concluded oral agreement on 29.10.2023

The Court found that the Appellant failed to demonstrate financial "wherewithal," noting that a prospective home loan eligibility letter is insufficient to prove the capacity to pay Rs. 12.40 crores

Additionally, the Appellant’s conduct—attempting to renegotiate the price due to tenanted occupancy and accepting the refund of the earnest money—militated against a finding of readiness and willingness

The Court concluded that the suit was an attempt to cloud the Respondent's title amid rising property prices

The Court affirmed that specific performance cannot be granted based on vague oral assertions or where negotiations had not matured into a concluded contract

The appeal was dismissed, confirming the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC