2026 Supreme(SC) 850

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
V.N.A.S. Chandran – Appellant
Versus
S. Venila And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7825-7828 of 2013
Decided On : 31-07-2026

Specific performance is a discretionary and equitable remedy. The party seeking such relief must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their obligations and must approach the court with clean hands. Inconsistent conduct, lack of financial capacity, and excessive delay make such relief inequitable.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16(c) and 20 - Suit for specific performance - Discretionary and equitable relief - Requirements for grant - Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness from date of execution until decree - Failure to demonstrate availability of funds or exhibiting inconsistent conduct acts as bar to relief - (Paras 41, 43, 44)

(B) Appeal - Scope - Respondent supporting a decree may impugn an adverse finding without filing cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22, provided no additional relief is sought - Court sitting in appeal evaluates if decision below is perverse or illegal - (Para 35)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 27 - Receipt of additional evidence - Crucial admitted documents may be received if relevant to demonstrate conduct of parties - (Para 30)

Facts of the case:
The appellant entered into an agreement to sell property. Disputes arose regarding payment, the validity of the contract, and the subsequent unilateral cancellation of the agreement by the appellant. The respondents initiated a suit for specific performance or, in the alternative, recovery of the amount paid. The trial court decreed the suit only for the refund of the earnest money, refusing specific performance due to the lack of clean hands and failure to prove readiness. The high court reversed this decision, granting specific performance. The appellant challenged this order, citing the respondents' inconsistent conduct and lack of financial readiness.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the remedy of specific performance is equitable and discretionary. The record indicated that the respondents acted inconsistently, including seeking recovery of the earnest money in criminal complaints and adopting contradictory positions regarding the assignment of contractual rights. Furthermore, the evidence failed to establish continuous financial readiness, as evidenced by dishonoured payments and reliance on insufficient financial arrangements. The passage of two decades and the advanced age of the appellant also rendered the grant of specific performance inequitable.

Issues: The main issues were whether the respondents established continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract and whether their conduct, characterized by taking inconsistent positions and initiating retributive litigation, barred them from seeking equitable relief under the statute.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the grant of specific performance is not automatic upon proving a valid contract. The conduct of the party seeking relief is paramount. Given the respondents' failure to demonstrate continuous financial readiness and their inconsistent stance in different legal proceedings, the trial court had correctly exercised its discretion to deny the equitable remedy. The appellate court erred in ignoring these factors and failing to apply the principle that a person seeking equity must do equity.

Result: Appeals allowed; high court judgment set aside; trial court judgment restored.