Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Geeta Sonawane Rahate A/w, Mr. Denzil D'Mello
For the Respondent: Mr. Hrishikesh Sopan Shinde A/w, Pranav Vaidya

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points relevant to the case:

• The court emphasized that to claim specific performance, the plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations. In this case, the plaintiffs failed to do so, leading to the dismissal of their claim (!) (!) .

• The agreement in question was for the sale of ancestral land, with the defendant required to obtain subdivision and sale permissions, clear outstanding loans, and remove encumbrances before the sale could be executed. The initial consideration amount was insufficient to meet these obligations, particularly given the outstanding loan amount and the Nazrana (permission fee) required for sale permissions, which was not included in the original agreement (!) (!) (!) .

• The evidence showed that the amount received under the agreement was inadequate for the defendant to fulfill the contractual conditions, especially the payment needed for sale permissions and clearing existing encumbrances. This inadequacy was a significant factor in the court’s conclusion that the defendant could not perform the contract (!) (!) .

• The agreement did not specify the amount payable as Nazrana, nor did it mention the payment of the outstanding loan, which were critical obligations for the sale to proceed. This omission and the insufficient initial payment further undermined the plaintiffs’ case (!) (!) .

• The plaintiff's conduct, including the failure to pay additional amounts or take proactive steps to fulfill contractual obligations, was viewed as a lack of readiness and willingness. The courts found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate their capacity or intention to perform the contract, which is essential for granting specific performance (!) .

• The courts also considered the financial circumstances, noting that the plaintiffs' purpose was investment, and they were not agriculturists, which was relevant in assessing the balance of convenience and hardship (!) .

• Ultimately, the courts upheld the judgments dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for specific performance, finding that they had failed to prove their readiness and willingness and that the defendant was unable to perform the contract due to the reasons discussed (!) .

• The court directed the refund of the amount deposited by the plaintiffs, along with interest, as the appeal was dismissed (!) (!) .

These points reflect the court’s reasoning that the plaintiffs failed to meet the essential criteria for specific performance and that the defendant was not in a position to fulfill the contractual obligations, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.