Specific performance requires reasoned assessment of the plaintiff’s readiness, willingness, and capacity to pay.

S.T. Ravanan sued for specific performance of an unregistered agreement of sale dated 05.01.2012, seeking conveyance of a house property and cancellation of a later sale deed dated 26.07.2018 in favour of other respondents.

He alleged that he had paid a further advance and that the time for performance had been extended.

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs were not vigilant in paying the balance consideration and noting that the property had been conveyed to the other respondents.

The second to fifth plaintiffs, impleaded as Ravanan’s legal representatives, appealed under Section 96 CPC.

The respondents had not appeared, filed written statements, or cross-examined the plaintiffs’ witnesses at trial.

1. Whether the trial court adequately assessed the plaintiffs’ readiness and willingness, including their capacity and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration, before dismissing the specific-performance suit

2. Whether the trial court’s judgment should be set aside and the suit remanded for fresh consideration, including a fresh opportunity for the parties to present evidence

The Court identified the need, in a specific-performance suit, to examine the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to tender the balance consideration, including the availability of funds and willingness to part with them.

It also stated that the court should assess the timing and amount of any further advance in relation to the agreement and total consideration.

The appeal was brought under Section 96 CPC, as stated in the prayer; the judgment cites no further statutory provisions or precedents.

The trial court dismissed the suit without adequately identifying or analysing the basis for its decision, relying instead on the plaintiffs’ supposed lack of vigilance and the subsequent conveyance of the property.

It had not sufficiently addressed readiness and willingness, the plaintiffs’ means to pay, or the timing and adequacy of the further advance.

The High Court found this approach unsatisfactory and concluded that the matter required a fresh determination on properly framed issues, with fresh evidence from both sides.

It also allowed for the respondents to seek to set aside the ex parte order and file a written statement if sufficient reasons were advanced.

It directed that both parties be given an opportunity to tender evidence afresh and requested the trial court to endeavour to dispose of the matter within three months from the framing of issues, with the parties’ cooperation.