Shyamlal vs Rachna - 2026 Supreme(MP) 532

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act - Section 20 - Specific performance of agreement to sale - Readiness and willingness of the purchaser - Determination of willingness through bank statements and prompt filing of suit - Demarcation clause in agreement - Availability of funds as reflected in bank accounts and the timely initiation of legal proceedings indicate both readiness and willingness to perform the contract. If the agreement stipulates that the seller must ensure demarcation of the property before execution, the failure of the seller to provide proof of such demarcation supports the purchaser's claim. (Paras 12, 13)

(B) Specific performance - Discretionary relief - Price escalation of property - Mere escalation in the price of the land, after the execution of an agreement, does not justify the refusal of specific performance, provided the purchaser has acted fairly and remained ready and willing. The relief should not be denied simply due to price rise unless extraordinary hardship, not foreseen at the time of the contract, is established. (Paras 14, 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
An agreement to sell land was executed with a part of the sale consideration paid upfront. The agreement included a clause requiring the sellers to perform demarcation of the property before the execution of the registered sale deed. The period for execution was extended by mutual consent. The purchasers alleged that they were present before the Sub-Registrar for execution, but the sellers failed to perform the demarcation and execute the deed. The sellers contended that the purchasers lacked the necessary funds and willingness to complete the transaction and argued that specific performance should be denied due to the significant increase in land prices since 2018.

Findings of Court:
The court found that bank statements clearly demonstrated that the purchasers had sufficient funds to cover the balance consideration throughout the relevant period. The prompt filing of the suit within eight months of the agreement further indicated willingness. Regarding demarcation, the sellers failed to produce documentary evidence that the requirement had been met, rendering their oral claims untenable.

Issues: Whether the purchasers demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract and whether the relief of specific performance should be denied on the grounds of property price escalation.

Ratio Decidendi: Readiness and willingness are established when financial capacity is proven through bank records and corroborated by the conduct of the party, such as prompt litigation. A condition precedent in the agreement, such as demarcation to be performed by the seller, must be fulfilled. Price escalation alone does not create the type of hardship that would lead a court to exercise its discretion to deny specific performance when the purchaser has acted fairly.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Agreement to sale land — Time extension — Failure to execute sale deed — Suit for specific performance. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )

2. Plaintiff lacked readiness and willingness — Relief should be refused due to price escalation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )

3. Second appeal dismissed — concurrent findings upheld; no substantial question of law arose. (Para 19 )

4. What constitutes readiness to perform a contract for sale of land?

Readiness is shown by the plaintiff having sufficient funds in their account on or before the date fixed for execution of the sale deed. (Para 12 , 13 )

5. How is willingness to perform a contract inferred from a plaintiff's conduct?

Willingness is inferred from arranging funds by the deadline, appearing before the Sub-Registrar, and promptly filing suit after breach. (Para 13 , 19 )

6. Is specific performance a discretionary remedy? When should it be refused?

It is discretionary but ordinarily granted; refusal requires equitable considerations like unforeseen hardship or conduct disentitling the plaintiff. (Para 14 , 15 )

7. Does the pre-amendment Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act apply to agreements executed before the 2018 amendment?

Yes, the unamended Section 20 applies, but even under that provision, refusal requires a specific case of hardship not pleaded or proved. (Para 14 , 16 )

JUDGMENT :

PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

This appeal by the defendants is against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by two Courts below whereby a decree of specific performance has been granted against the defendants/appellants in civil suit No. 145A/2018 vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.2023 as affirmed by the appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.38/2023 vide judgment and decree dated 08.11.2024.

2. The relevant facts of the case are that the defendants/appellants agreed to sale their land situated in Survey No. 24/1 admeasuring 0.24 hectare, Survey No. 31 admeasuring 0.27 hectare and Survey No. 33 admeasuring 0.72 hectare of village Shyampura, Tehsil Piploda, District Ratlam in favour of plaintiffs/respondents for which an agreement to sale (Exhibit P/1) was executed on 03.02.2018 according to which the sale was to be effected by 03.04.2018 i.e. within a period two months. There was stipulation in Clause No. 6 of the agreement to sale (Exhibit P/1) to the effect that the defendants shall get the demarcation of the suit property done in the presence of plaintiffs before execution of the registered sale deed. As per the agreement (Exhibit P/1), an amount of Rs. 6,11,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants and rest of the amount was to be paid on the date of execution of sale deed. The sale consideration according to the agreed rate was Rs. 3,35,000/- per bigha. As such, the total sale consideration for total land of 4 bighas and 19 biswa was Rs. 16,48,200/- out of which an amount of Rs. 6,11,000/- was received by the defendants/appellants on the date of execution of agreement to sale.

3. The time of two months as stipulated in the agreement was getting completed on 03.04.2018. As such, both the parties by mutual consent extended the time by 10 days i.e. up to 13.04.2018 for which an endorsement was made on the agreement (Exhibit P/1) itself which is not under dispute in the present case.

4. According to the plaintiffs/respondents even though the demarcation was not done but they remained present before the Sub-Registrar on 13.04.2018 for execution of sale deed however, the defendants/appellants did not turn up. The receipt of presence before the Sub-Registrar office has been placed on record as Exhibit P/20 which shows that the plaintiffs/respondents were present before the Registrar on 13.04.2018.

5. It was averred in the plaint that despite repeated requests, the defendants/appellants neither got the suit land demarcated nor executed the sale deed. Thus, a notice through counsel was sent which the defendants refused to accept. Thus, a complaint before the CSP, Jaora and Station House Officer, Jaora was also submitted. In such circumstances, the suit came to be filed before the trial Court for the relief of specific performance and permanent injunction.

6. The defendants/appellants also filed their written statement whereby while denying all the averments in the plaint, it was also averred that the plaintiffs/respondents did not pay the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 10,37,200/- which they were required to pay as per the agreement upto 03.04.2018. However, even after the lapse of extended period of 10 days, the plaintiffs did not pay the amount. It was also stated in the written statement that on 11.05.2018, the defendants sent a notice to the plaintiffs thereby asking them to get the sale deed executed within three days from the date of receipt of notice by paying the remaining sale consideration. Although, this notice was received by the plaintiffs/respondents on 15.05.2018, they did not pay the balance amount thus the sale deed was not executed. As such, the contract got terminated thus, they are not entitled to get the relief of specific performance of said contract.

7. The trial Court based on the respective pleadings framed as many as six issues and all of them are decided in favour plaintiffs/respondents thereby decreeing their suit for specific performance. The Court directed for execution of sale

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Shyamlal And Others - Appellants
Versus
Rachna And Others – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 10 of 2025
Decided On : 23-02-2026

Specific performance is granted when readiness and willingness are proven via financial records and conduct. Property price escalation alone does not justify denying this relief if the purchaser acted fairly and the seller failed to fulfill contractual obligations, such as property demarcation.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What constitutes readiness to perform a contract for sale of land?

5. How is willingness to perform a contract inferred from a plaintiff's conduct?

6. Is specific performance a discretionary remedy? When should it be refused?

7. Does the pre-amendment Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act apply to agreements executed before the 2018 amendment?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDOREPAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.Shyamlal And Others - AppellantsVersus Rachna And Others – RespondentsSecond Appeal No. 10 of 2025 Decided On : 23-02-2026

Specific performance is granted when readiness and willingness are proven via financial records and conduct. Property price escalation alone does not justify denying this relief if the purchaser acted fairly and the seller failed to fulfill contractual obligations, such as property demarcation.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What constitutes readiness to perform a contract for sale of land?

5. How is willingness to perform a contract inferred from a plaintiff's conduct?

6. Is specific performance a discretionary remedy? When should it be refused?

7. Does the pre-amendment Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act apply to agreements executed before the 2018 amendment?

Cases Referred (3)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Shyamlal And Others - Appellants
Versus
Rachna And Others – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 10 of 2025
Decided On : 23-02-2026