Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 721
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Mohammed Khaleel (D) through LRs. and Others – Appellants
Versus
Jayamma – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2187 of 2011
Decided On : 23-06-2026
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Sonakshi Banga, Adv. Mrs. Mansvini Jain, Adv. Mr. Sukant Vikram, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P. R. Ramasesh, AOR Mr. Abdul Azeem Kalebudde, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell – Availability of funds must be proved with reference to relevant point of time and not by relying upon financial documents generated long after filing of suit.
Headnote:
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) – Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Relief of specific performance is one based on equity for enforcing contractual obligations undertaken by parties – Continuous readiness and willingness to perform part of contract is a condition precedent to grant relief of specific performance – To examine readiness and willingness, Court will have to take into account entirety of pleadings and also evidence brought on record – There is no material to show that appellant/plaintiff had balance sale consideration available – Availability of funds must be proved with reference to relevant point of time and not by relying upon financial documents generated long after filing of suit. (Paras 29, 31, 33 and 37)
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) – Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – For claiming equitable relief such as that of specific performance, conduct of party claiming it must be beyond reproach – This includes that plaintiff approaches Court on time, which does not merely mean within period of limitation itself but also promptly with diligence and equitability – Conduct of appellant/plaintiff reflects lack of continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract, which is a sine qua non for grant of relief of specific performance – This is not a fit case where discretionary relief of specific performance can be granted in favour of appellants – Relief declined. (Paras 40, 42, 43 and 44)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2009 passed by Division Bench of High Court at Bangalore in R.F.A No.418 of 2003, whereby High Court set aside judgment and decree dated 31.01.2002 passed by Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mysore. Resultantly, suit for specific performance filed by appellant stands dismissed.
Findings of Court:
First legal notice was issued on 15.4.1991 by appellant/plaintiff, after which respondent/defendant gave a categorical refusal to effectuate her obligations under agreement vide reply dated 26.04.1991 as appellant/plaintiff failed to take necessary permission under ULCRA prior to registration of sale deed; time stipulated for completion of sale transaction had also expired; and appellant/plaintiff failed to tender the balance sale consideration within stipulated time or initiate prompt legal proceedings.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - Specific performance is an equitable remedy requiring continuous readiness and willingness, including proof of financial capacity at the relevant time (!) (!) . - Readiness refers to financial capacity, and willingness refers to conduct and intention; both must be proven cumulatively (!) (!) . - Proof of financial capacity must align with the relevant period of the contract, not with documents created long after the suit (!) (!) . - Delay in filing suit, especially approaching the end of the limitation period, may bar equitable relief if it reflects lack of promptitude and dilatory conduct (!) (!) . - A party seeking specific performance must approach the court promptly and with equitability, beyond merely filing within the limitation period (!) (!) . - The vendor may rescind the agreement if the buyer fails to perform obligations, such as obtaining necessary permissions, and indicates unwillingness to perform (!) (!) .
What are the requirements for obtaining specific performance regarding readiness and willingness?
What is the impact of unexplained delay on claiming equitable relief such as specific performance?
On what grounds can an agreement to sell be rescinded by the vendor?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual matrix of the specific performance suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. arguments concerning financial readiness and breach of contractual obligations. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 3. statutory requirement of continuous readiness and willingness under section 16(c) of the specific relief act. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 4. assessment of financial capacity and conduct regarding statutory permissions during the relevant period. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 5. impact of unexplained delay and lack of diligence on granting equitable relief for specific performance. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 6. final determination denying equitable relief due to failure to meet readiness requirements and undue delay. (Para 43 , 44) |
JUDGMENT :
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. The present Appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Bangalore in R.F.A. No. 418 of 2003, whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2002 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Mysore. Resultantly, the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant stands dismissed.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The appellant-Mohammed Khaleel was the original plaintiff who died during the pendency of the subject suit. The subject suit was contested by his legal representatives who are the appellants before us in this Appeal.
3. The appellant/original plaintiff and the respondent/original defendant entered into an agreement to sell on 20.12.1990 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- for a vacant site measuring 100 feet by 78 feet. An amount of Rs. 25,000/- was paid by the appellant as earnest money and it was agreed that the sale deed shall be registered within four months and the balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,75,000/- would be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the suit property.
4. Under the said agreement to sell dated 20.12.1990, the respondent/defendant handed over to the appellant/plaintiff, the original copy of the title documents viz., original will deed, settlement deed, katha extract issued by the Corporation, endorsement regarding the change of katha of the suit property, tax paid receipts, encumbrance certificate dated 06.08.1989, application addressed to the Revenue Officer dated 03.05.1982 and photocopy of sale deed dated 07.06.1961, plan of property indicating division into eight shares.
5. It is the case of the appellants that the respondent also agreed that her brothers and sisters would execute an interim agreement where an approach road would be formed within the area starting from T. Narasipura Main Road opposite to Milk Diary up to the end of the schedule property. The appellant/plaintiff was thereafter put in the possession of the schedule property. However, in the written statement filed by the respondent/defendant before the Trial Court, it was categorically stated that there was already an approach road to the suit property. It was also asserted in the written statement that there was no other land or vacant space in or near the suit property to carve out any separate approach road.
6. The appellant/plaintiff vide notice dated 15.04.1991, urged the respondent/defendant to perform her part of the contract; however, the same was not served upon the respondent/defendant due to the wrong house number mentioned thereon. It is alleged that in the said notice the appellant/plaintiff admitted that the suit property was not measured and the road was also not formed and, hence, the appellant/plaintiff could not be compelled to purchase the suit property.
7. Thereafter, the respondent/defendant issued a legal notice dated 26.04.1991 to the appellant/plaintiff wherein it was mentioned that the original documents pertaining to the suit property were in the custody of the appellant/plaintiff and since he
