Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Mad) 2067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. DHANABAL, J.
Annammal (died) - Appellant
Versus
Pattu – Respondent
SA No. 260 of 2015, M.P.No.1 of 2015
Decided On : 17-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.P.Mani
For the Respondent: Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar, Mr.M.Rajandiran Additional Government Pleader

The court ruled that a plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to execute a sale agreement, and failure to do so, along with undue hardship to defendants, can preclude specific performance.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Appeal for specific performance - Suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff for the execution of a sale deed which was partly decreed by trial court but the appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the order - Courts below failed to assess readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract, leading to undue hardship for defendants if performance was ordered - The appellate court overlooked the absence of sufficient evidence of the plaintiff's financial capacity and the inapplicability of proper notice to the defendants, thus misjudging the matter. (Paras 18, 19)

(B) Contract Law - The essence of readiness and willingness in contractual obligations hinges on substantiation through evidence - The plaintiff's failure to prove adequate ability to complete the transaction and the timing of the suit post-14 years post-agreement posed a risk of undue advantage due to changed circumstances. (Paras 17, 19) facts of the case: The plaintiff agreed to purchase suit properties at Rs.40,000/- with Rs.1,000/- paid as advance but failed to complete the payment in the stipulated time, leading to legal action. findings of Court: The judgments of both courts were found lacking in examining critical factors around the enforcement of the contract.

Issues: Key questions revolved around the plaintiff's readiness to execute the agreement and whether significant hardship would ensue for the defendants if the specific performance was mandated.

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the necessity for concrete proof of readiness and financial capability from the plaintiff and stressed on the discretionary nature of specific performance, noting the changes in property market valuations over time leading to potential hardships for defendants.

Result: Second appeal is allowed and original suit is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishment of the basis for contract performance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. readiness and willingness necessity in contract. (Para 12)
3. assessment of undue hardship and discretion in performance. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

ORDER :

P. DHANABAL, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgement and decree passed in A.S.No.30 of 2012 dated 06.06.2014 on the file of Sub Court, Cheyyar, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2012 passed in O.S.No.145 of 2004, on the file of Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Cheyyar.

2. The appellants 1 and 2 herein are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit and the 9^th respondent herein is the 3^rd defendant in the suit. Originally the plaintiff viz., Vedapuri, filed a suit for specific performance and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and also restraining the Sub Registrar, the 3^rd defendant from registering any document presented by the defendants 1 and 2 . During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and the respondents 1 to 8 herein who are the legal heirs of the plaintiff were brought on record. The trial Court partly decreed the suit by directing the defendants to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff and the suit in respect of permanent injunction was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgement and decree, the defendants 1 and 2 have preferred the first appeal. The first Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal, by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed.

3. The parties are referred to as per their own ranking before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

4. Originally, the suit properties belonged to the defendants 1 and 2. The said defendants agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and executed an agreement of sale on 25.11.2000. On the date of agreement a sum of Rs.1,000/- was paid as advance by the plaintiff and on receiving the same, the possession of property was handed over to the plaintiff by the defendants 1 and 2. Thereafter though the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendants 1 and 2 have not come forward to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 28.01.2001 to the defendants 1 and 2 and despite receipt of the said notice, the aforesaid defendants 1 and 2 failed to reply for the same and also have not came forward to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the sale agreement. While so, on 02.02.2001, the defendants 1 and 2 attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit.

The brief averments of the written statement filed by the 1st defendant and adopted by the 2^nd defendant are as follows:

5. The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The allegations in the plaint are all false and frivolous and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of each and every allegation, except those that are specifically admitted herein. The averment that the defendants 1 and 2 had jointly executed the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit properties is false. The defendants 1 and 2 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiff was not given possession of the suit properties at any point of time. The plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendants 1 and 2 had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- from Govindaraj and a sum of Rs.10,000/- from Sankar in the year 1995. In order to discharge those debts, the defendants 1 and 2 borrowed money from outsiders for high rate of interest because of the failure on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. The Plaintiff is not ready to pay b