Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 13024

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J
Thoom Narayana – Appellant
Versus
Lekkala Ram Reddy – Respondent
APPEAL SUIT No.371 of 2008

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: A. Venkatesh

Specific performance is a discretionary equitable relief that requires the plaintiff to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations. Failure to demonstrate such commitment, compounded by significant unexplained delay, disentitles the plaintiff to a decree, regardless of whether time was originally the essence of the contract.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale - Requirement of 'ready and willing' - Plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform essential terms, failing which the suit must fail. (Paras 46, 53)

(B) Specific Performance - Contract for sale of immovable property - Time as essence of contract - While there is a presumption that time is not the essence in immovable property cases, it can be inferred from terms, nature of property, or surrounding circumstances - Unilateral cancellation without an express 'consequence clause' is not legally conclusive but remains a factor in assessing conduct. (Paras 32, 40, 42)

(C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Discretionary relief - Grant of specific performance is not automatic - Conduct of parties, unexplained delay in filing suit, and failure to demonstrate continuous readiness disentitle a party to equitable relief. (Paras 52, 57, 59)

Facts of the case:
The appellant unsuccessfully defended a suit for specific performance regarding an agreement to sell land. The plaintiff had previously obtained a sale deed for a portion of the land but sought to enforce the sale of the remaining portion after a significant delay. The defendant had issued a notice purporting to cancel the agreement due to non-payment of balance consideration within the stipulated time. The trial court decreed the suit, which was challenged on grounds of lack of readiness and willingness and unreasonable delay in initiating legal proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while time was not the essence of the contract, the plaintiff failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness as required by Section 16(c) of the Act. The prolonged, unexplained delay of over 17 months in filing the suit after receiving a cancellation notice, coupled with inaction, demonstrated a lack of the requisite commitment to perform the contract.

Issues: Whether the agreement was validly cancelled, whether time was the essence of the contract, whether the plaintiff proved continuous readiness and willingness, and whether the discretionary relief of specific performance should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that specific performance is an equitable and discretionary relief. Readiness must be continuous and demonstrable through consistent conduct. In the absence of such conduct and given the unexplained delay, the plaintiff failed to meet the statutory requirement of readiness and willingness, rendering the grant of specific performance inequitable.

Result: Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the trial court set aside and the suit dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual history and background regarding the specific performance suit. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. parties' contentions on limitation, readiness, and contract cancellation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
3. determining if time is the essence of property sale contracts. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
4. proving continuous readiness and willingness under section 16(c) specific relief act. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
5. discretionary nature of specific performance and effect of unexplained delay. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)

JUDGMENT:

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant challenging the judgment and decree in OS.No.28 of 2006 (Old OS.No.62/02 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar) on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of an agreement of sale has been decreed.

2. For brevity and also for better understanding of the case, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the original suit before the learned Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the defendant on 04.07.2000. The defendant is the owner and possessor of dry land an extent of Ac.0.37 guntas in Survey No.274/అ, Ac.0.37 guntas in Survey No.274/ఆ and Ac.0.26 guntas in Survey No.274/ ఆ totally admeasuring Ac.2.20 guntas situated at Nagunoor Village, Karimnagar Revenue Mandal, having purchased the same from the rightful owners for valuable consideration. Further, the defendant also purchased land to an extent of Acre 0.37 guntas in Sy.No.274/A, Acre.0.37 guntas in survey No.274/B and Acre 0.26 guntas in Sy.No.275/B, totally admeasuring Acres 2.20 guntas situated in Nagunoor village, Karimnagar Revenue Mandal & District, in the name of his wife namely Smt Thoomu Mallamma, and both lands of the defendant and his wife, are situated adjacent to each other.

4. Further, it is contended that out of the offer and acceptance of the plaintiff and the defendant, they have entered into an agreement of sale on 04.07.2000, whereby the plaintiff agreed to purchase the entire extent of Acres.5.00 guntas @ Rs.2,20,000/- per acre out of which one part of the extent of Acres.2.20 guntas, was agreed to be registered on 04.08.2000 and the other part of land of an extent of Ac.2.20 guntas to be registered on 04.10.2000 upon receipt of the entire sale consideration. Pursuant to the said agreement, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid as advance under Ex.A1, Agreement of Sale, and subsequent thereto, the defendant’s wife executed a registered sale deed conveying an extent of Acres.2.20 guntas, standing in her name to the plaintiff, out of total land admeasuring Acres.5.00 guntas under Ex.A1 on 05.08.2000 by Ex.A3/sale deed.

5. It is stated that the defendant having executed the sale deed in respect of part of the total extent of land, has postponed the execution of the registered sale deed in respect of the remaining extent of land standing in his name to an extent of Acres 2.20 guntas, in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance of sale consideration. Though the plaintiff has approached the defendant to execute a proper sale deed, the defendant postponed the same, on one pretext or the other, upon which the plaintiff got issued a legal notice under Ex.B2, dt.03.11.2000 through his counsel by demanding the defendant to execute a sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration, to which the defendant sent reply, dt.08.11.2000/Ex.B1 stating that as the plaintiff failed to obtain the sale deed within the stipulated time on or before 04.10.2000 despite his repeated requests and therefore at present(at that time), he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 13024

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADSuddala Chalapathi Rao, JThoom Narayana – AppellantVersusLekkala Ram Reddy – RespondentAPPEAL SUIT No.371 of 2008

Cases Referred (11)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J
Thoom Narayana – Appellant
Versus
Lekkala Ram Reddy – Respondent
APPEAL SUIT No.371 of 2008