2026 Supreme(All) 531

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANDEEP JAIN, J.
Mimansa Nangia And Others - Appellants
Versus 
Shivani Hospital Private Ltd. - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL No. - 485 of 2025
Decided On : 06-05-2026

Specific performance is an equitable remedy where readiness and willingness must be proven in substance, not strict form. Financial capacity and demonstrated intent throughout the litigation are essential; once established, natural appreciation in property value does not disentitle the purchaser to the relief.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16, 20 - Suit for specific performance - Readiness and willingness - Compliance with the requirement of readiness and willingness is to be judged in spirit and substance rather than in letter and form - Financial capacity to perform the contract is a material factor but it is not necessary to carry ready cash at all times - Burden lies on the plaintiff to prove availability of funds. (Paras 74, 91, 92, 136)

(B) Registration Act, 1908 - Compliance with registration procedure - Presence of parties - State-specific amendments govern the procedure - Mere absence of a party from the registry office does not invalidate the agreement where the contract is otherwise proved and the party has shown intent to perform. (Paras 154-155)

(C) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Period of limitation for specific performance of contract to sell - Three years from the date fixed for performance or from the date when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. (Paras 59, 158)

Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a registered agreement to sell an immovable property. The appellants (legal heirs of the vendor) resisted the suit, alleging that the vendor was under undue influence, that the property was undervalued, that the plaintiff lacked the requisite financial capacity, and that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court decreed the suit, finding that the respondent had consistently shown readiness and willingness, while the vendor failed to fulfill the obligation to convert the property from leasehold to freehold status.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the agreement was validly executed and the plaintiff established continuous readiness and willingness. The court rejected the plea of undue influence due to lack of evidence. It observed that the defendants failed to perform the condition precedent (conversion to freehold), and the plaintiff's financial status was found adequate based on balance sheets and bank statements.

Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform its part of the contract, whether the suit was barred by limitation, and whether the agreement was voidable due to undue influence or inadequate consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that readiness and willingness under the statute are determined by the conduct of the purchaser throughout the currency of the agreement. Substantial compliance is the benchmark for equitable relief. Mere passage of time or escalation in market price does not automatically negate the grant of specific performance when the plaintiff has not acted with malafide intent and has proved financial capability.

Result: Appeal dismissed; decree of the lower court affirmed.

Table of Content
1. initiation of suit for specific performance based on registered agreement to sell. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. defence contentions on undue influence, limitation, and lack of readiness. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. evaluation of evidentiary testimonies presented in the suit. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
4. trial court's reasoning and adjudication on specific issues. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73)
5. appellate submissions regarding performance and financial capacity. (Para 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88)
6. precedent analysis on statutory requirements for specific performance. (Para 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104)
7. findings on contract validity, financial capability, and material compliance. (Para 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156)
8. final ratio decidendi for granting specific performance decree. (Para 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161)

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Jain, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendants under Section 96 CPC against the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.3.2025 passed by the Court of Civil Judge(Senior Division)/FTC, Kanpur Nagar in O.S. no. 50 of 2017 Shivani Hospital Private Ltd. vs. Mimansa Nangia and others, whereby the plaintiffs suit for the relief of specific performance of registered agreement to sell dated 22.10.2012 has been decreed.

Plaint case

2. The plaintiff Shivani Hospital Private Limited filed O.S. No. 50 of 2017 against defendant no.1 Mimansa Nangia, defendant no. 2 Shailja Nangia @ Shalu and defendant no.3 Smt. Shivani @ Shibbu Begum Shahnaz Faisal with the averments that their father Dharam Prakash Nangia was the owner in possession of plot no. A–10,Block C,Sarvodaya Nagar, Kakadev, Kanpur Nagar admeasuring 1,352 yd²= 1130.41 square metre, the boundaries of which have been mentioned at the end of the plaint, which is hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed property'.

3. It was averred that the defendant's father Dharam Prakash Nangia voluntarily and with free will executed an agreement to sell regarding the disputed property on 22.10.2012 in favour of the plaintiff ,which was registered in Book no.1, Zild no. 7095, at pages 1- 84, serial no. 8557 on 7.11.2012 in the office of sub-registrar, Zone – 4, Kanpur Nagar. It was further averred that since Dharam Prakash Nangia was in need of money,the disputed property was agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs. 5.25 crores, which was according to its market 5.25 crores, which was according to its market value. It was further agreed that Dharam Prakash Nangia would get the disputed property freehold and then the sale deed would be executed in favour of the plaintiff. It was also agreed that at the time of execution of the agreement to sell, a part consideration of Rs. 5.25 crores, which was according to its market 2 crores will be paid by the plaintiff to Dharam Prakash Nangia. It was further averred that in accordance with the above terms and conditions of the sale, an amount of Rs. 5.25 crores, which was according to its market 2 crores was paid at the time of execution of agreement to sell on 22.10.2012 through cheques, the details of which were mentioned in the plaint. It was agreed that the remaining consideration of Rs. 5.25 crores, which was according to its market 3.25 crores would be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

4. It was further averred that besid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document