Specific performance requires proof of continuous readiness and willingness; failure warrants denial.

Defendants 1 and 2 allegedly agreed to sell two items of property to the plaintiff under an agreement dated 8 November 2001 for ₹83,920.

The plaintiff claimed to have paid ₹16,000 as advance and a further ₹2,000, and said completion was conditional on the vendors changing the patta.

On 5 December 2001, defendants 1 and 2 executed a registered sale deed for Item No. 1 in favour of the third defendant, who disputed the genuineness of the plaintiff’s agreement and relied on an earlier registered agreement with another purchaser.

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit; the first appellate court allowed her appeal and granted relief.

The third defendant appealed to the High Court under Section 100 CPC.

1. Whether the first appellate court was right to treat Ex.A1 as a complete and valid agreement despite the contention that the vendors’ mother was a party to the transaction but had not signed it.

2. Whether the first appellate court was right to hold that the plaintiff’s failure to enter the witness box had no adverse effect on her case.

In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must establish the existence and enforceability of the contract and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform its essential terms; this requirement is reflected in Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and was stated by the Court in general terms.

The Court also applied the principle that payment of an admitted advance may warrant restitution where specific performance is refused.

Section 100 CPC governed the second appeal.

The judgment records authorities cited by counsel but does not identify or apply a particular precedent as the basis of its decision.

The Court noted that the third defendant disputed Ex.A1 and that the trial court had found it unproved.

It concluded that the evidence did not establish the plaintiff’s continuous readiness and willingness, particularly because she had not shown effective steps to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period or thereafter and had not deposited that balance before the courts below.

The earlier registered agreement was a relevant circumstance, while the difference between the consideration in Ex.A1 and the subsequent sale deed could not replace proof of readiness and willingness.

The Court’s reasons focus on readiness and willingness and the surrounding transactions; it does not separately elaborate on the effect of the mother’s non-signature or the plaintiff’s failure to enter the witness box.

It nevertheless directed defendants 1 and 2 to repay the admitted advance of ₹16,000, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of suit until realization.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.