In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff's 'readiness and willingness' is established by demonstrating financial capacity and consistent conduct in pursuing the contract, and such findings by lower courts based on evidence are not to be interfered with in second appeal.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - S. 16(c) - Suit for specific performance - Readiness and willingness - Appellant alleged failure of plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness and absence of testimony from one co-plaintiff - Court found that plaintiffs had established financial capacity through loan sanction letters, bank statements, and payment of earnest money - Plaintiffs also proved their presence before the Sub-Registrar - Held, concurrent findings of trial and appellate court regarding execution of agreement and readiness of plaintiffs are based on material evidence - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 14-22).

Facts of the case:
The appellant entered into an agreement to sell property to the respondents for Rs. 1,72,50,000. Despite receiving an earnest amount, the appellant failed to execute the sale deed by the target date. The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed by both lower courts. The defendant appealed, claiming the plaintiffs failed to prove readiness and willingness and that the testimony was insufficient.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the appellant’s own admissions regarding signatures and receipts confirmed the execution of the agreement. The plaintiffs provided substantial documentary evidence of financial capacity and attendance at the registrar's office. The findings of the lower courts were based on evidence, and the appellant failed to prove his own part of the contract.

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs proved their readiness and willingness to perform the contract under S. 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and whether the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a plaintiff demonstrates financial capacity and takes consistent steps to fulfill contractual obligations, they meet the requirement of readiness and willingness under S. 16(c). Admissions of signatures on sale agreements by the defendant establish the contract's execution, rendering technical objections regarding evidence sufficiency invalid.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural overview and factual background of the specific performance case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. appellant's arguments regarding lack of readiness and willingness under s. 16(c). (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. appellate court's analysis of evidence confirming plaintiff's readiness and defendant's failure. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. final confirmation of previous judgments and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 23 , 24)

CM-4260-C-2026

This is an application under Section 151 CPC for preponing the date of hearing from 09.10.2026 to some early date of hearing.

2. Heard.

3. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, instant application is allowed, and the main case is taken up on Board today itself.

CM-5689-C-2025

Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the accompanying appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 8 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

RSA-1656-2025 (O&M)

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant; whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for specific performance alongwith consequential relief of permanent injunction and temporary injunction, has been decreed by both the District Courts for specific performance.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents had filed a “Civil Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure P-1) and subsequent understanding/subsequent writings dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure P-2) executed between the defendant in favour of plaintiffs, in the interest of justice; AND Suit for permanent injunction and temporary injunction restraining the defendant from transferring the Dwelling Unit 5921, Duplex Phase-III, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, UT Chandigarh in favour of any other person except the plaintiffs and further directing the defendant to handover the physical peaceful possession of above said D.U to the plaintiffs, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 08.03.2019 (Annexure P-1) in the interest of justice.”

3. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiffs before the learned District Courts that defendant had entered into Agreement to Sell dated 08.03.2019 to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs for total sale consideration of Rs.1,72,50,000/-. Defendant had received Rs.30 lacs by way of earnest money. Target date for registration of Sale Deed was fixed for 15.07.2019. It was averred that as per Clause 4 of the Agreement, defendant was required to clear bank loan existing upon the suit property before 18.03.2019. As per Clause 12 of the Agreement to Sell, defendant was also required to clear all outstanding dues such as electricity bill and water bill/charges, maintenance et cetera. Vide Writing dated 08.07.2019, defendant had further undertaken to de-mortgage the suit dwelling unit on or before 25.07.2019; and target date stood extended to 20.08.2019. On 20.08.2019, defendant had failed to turn up before the Sub Registrar. It was averred that plaintiffs had already made payment of Rs.36 lacs to the defendant; and they were also having remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.1, 36,50,000/- as detailed in the plaint. It was alleged that defendant is trying to sell the suit property to a third party. With these plaintiffs, present suit was filed on 29.08.2019.

4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh had decreed suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 28.03.2024 as follows:

“37. As a sequel to my discussion and findings on the above issues, this court is of the considered view that the suit of plaintiffs succeeds and decreed to the effect that plain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 27834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHNidhi Gupta, JParveen Kumar – AppellantVersusNishu Bindal – RespondentRSA-1656-2025

In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff's 'readiness and willingness' is established by demonstrating financial capacity and consistent conduct in pursuing the contract, and such findings by lower courts based on evidence are not to be interfered with in second appeal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J
Parveen Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Nishu Bindal – Respondent
RSA-1656-2025