Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Specific Performance Entitlement - A purchaser cannot claim specific performance if they fail to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. Delay beyond the limitation period (commonly three years) can also bar relief, especially if the delay indicates a lack of bona fide intention ["K. R. Sundararaj VS M. Nataraj - Madras"], ["Sangita Sinha VS Bhawana Bhardwaj - Supreme Court"], ["Kandula Jagga Rao died VS Chevuri Lakshmi Narayana - Andhra Pradesh"], ["P. Marimuthu vs S.S. Prabhakaran - Madras"].
Failure to Prove Readiness and Willingness - Courts consistently emphasize that the onus is on the purchaser to prove they were always ready and willing to perform the contract. Non-compliance with this requirement results in denial of specific performance ["Shova Devi, Wife Of Late Dasrath Prasad Swarnkar. vs Sri Hasmukh Thacker, Son Of Late Ratilal Thacker - Jharkhand"], ["P. Daivasigamani VS S. Sambandan - Supreme Court"], ["P. Marimuthu vs S.S. Prabhakaran - Madras"], ["Kandula Jagga Rao died VS Chevuri Lakshmi Narayana - Andhra Pradesh"].
Effect of Delay and Limitation - The three-year limitation period is critical; waiting beyond this period without action generally disentitles the purchaser from specific performance. Delay, even within limitation, can influence the court's exercise of discretion, especially if it suggests disinterest or inability to perform ["K. R. Sundararaj VS M. Nataraj - Madras"], ["Sangita Sinha VS Bhawana Bhardwaj - Supreme Court"], ["Kandula Jagga Rao died VS Chevuri Lakshmi Narayana - Andhra Pradesh"].
Bona Fide Purchasers for Value - A bona fide purchaser for value without notice may be protected from specific performance claims against them, particularly in pendente lite situations, provided they act in good faith and without notice of prior agreements ["Ashok Kumar VS Amsu - Madras"], ["MUHAMMED SUBAIR vs VINCENT - Kerala"].
Seller’s Conduct and Title Defects - The seller cannot set up defective or no title as a defense when the purchaser has fulfilled their part, but the purchaser's default or misconduct, including making false pleas or not acting in good faith, can bar relief ["P. K. Abdul Salam, S/o. M. Mohammed Koya VS Abdul Jabbar (Deceased) S/o. Naina Mohammed - Kerala"], ["Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. VS Katta Sujatha Reddy - Supreme Court"], ["Varadharajan @ Pandian vs Thayar - Madras"].
Discretion and Court's Exercise - Specific performance is an equitable remedy, and courts exercise discretion based on facts such as delay, conduct, and proof of readiness. If the plaintiff fails to establish these, relief is denied ["P. Daivasigamani VS S. Sambandan - Supreme Court"], ["Medasani Ananda Naidu VS Manchu Mohan Babu Bhakthavathsalam Naidu - Current Civil Cases"], ["Shova Devi, Wife Of Late Dasrath Prasad Swarnkar. vs Sri Hasmukh Thacker, Son Of Late Ratilal Thacker - Jharkhand"].
Summary - Specific performance cannot be granted if the purchaser fails to establish their readiness and willingness, delays beyond the statutory period, or acts in bad faith. The law also protects bona fide third-party purchasers for value, and the seller cannot defend based on defective title if the purchaser has performed their obligations ["K. R. Sundararaj VS M. Nataraj - Madras"], ["Raj Rani Bhasin and Others v. S. Kartar Singh Mehta - Delhi"], ["Sangita Sinha VS Bhawana Bhardwaj - Supreme Court"], ["P. K. Abdul Salam, S/o. M. Mohammed Koya VS Abdul Jabbar (Deceased) S/o. Naina Mohammed - Kerala"].
References:- ["K. R. Sundararaj VS M. Nataraj - Madras"]- ["Raj Rani Bhasin and Others v. S. Kartar Singh Mehta - Delhi"]- ["Sangita Sinha VS Bhawana Bhardwaj - Supreme Court"]- ["Kandula Jagga Rao died VS Chevuri Lakshmi Narayana - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Ashok Kumar VS Amsu - Madras"]- ["P. K. Abdul Salam, S/o. M. Mohammed Koya VS Abdul Jabbar (Deceased) S/o. Naina Mohammed - Kerala"]- ["Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. VS Katta Sujatha Reddy - Supreme Court"]- ["Varadharajan @ Pandian vs Thayar - Madras"]- ["Medasani Ananda Naidu VS Manchu Mohan Babu Bhakthavathsalam Naidu - Current Civil Cases"]- ["Shova Devi, Wife Of Late Dasrath Prasad Swarnkar. vs Sri Hasmukh Thacker, Son Of Late Ratilal Thacker - Jharkhand"]
In real estate transactions, agreements to sell often lead to disputes where purchasers seek specific performance—a court order forcing the seller to complete the sale. But what happens when the purchaser themselves falls short? Can they still demand this equitable remedy? The question arises: specific performance cannot be entitled by purchaser on his failure. This post explores the legal principles, key cases, and practical insights under Indian law, particularly the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Drawing from judicial precedents, we'll examine why courts typically deny specific performance to purchasers who fail to demonstrate consistent readiness and willingness or elect not to accept part performance. This is general information and not legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Specific performance is a discretionary equitable remedy, not an absolute right. Courts grant it only when monetary damages are inadequate and the plaintiff has clean hands. For purchasers in sale agreements, Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act mandates proving readiness and willingness to perform the contract from inception until the suit's decree. Readiness and willingness are separate but both essential elements for claiming specific performanceSangita Sinha vs Bhawana Bhardwaj & Ors. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 608.
Failure at any stage—such as not maintaining financial capacity (readiness) or intent (willingness)—can bar the claim. Continuous readiness and willingness at all relevant times, from the contract's inception through the pendency of the suit, are prerequisites for the remedySangita Sinha vs Bhawana Bhardwaj & Ors. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 608. Courts scrutinize conduct: encashing earnest money drafts or delaying action signals abandonment Sangita Sinha vs Bhawana Bhardwaj & Ors. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 608.
Readiness means financial and logistical capacity to perform, like having funds for balance payment. Willingness reflects genuine intent, proven by consistent actions. In Gomathinayagam Pillai and Ors. v. Palaniswami Nadar, the court dismissed the suit for failure to prove continuity: failure to prove continuous readiness and willingness leads to dismissal of the suitSangita Sinha vs Bhawana Bhardwaj & Ors. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 608.
Recent cases reinforce this. In a 2023 Supreme Court ruling, the plaintiff lost specific performance due to unproven readiness, delay, and time's essence: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the delay in filing the suit disentitled the plaintiff to the relief of specific performanceP. R. Nagaraj VS Dhanalakshmi - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 139. Similarly, The fact that limitation is three years does not mean that a purchaser can wait for 1 or 2 years to file a suit and obtain specific performanceP. R. Nagaraj VS Dhanalakshmi - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 139R. Kandasamy (Since Dead) VS T. R. K. Sarawathy - 2024 8 Supreme 684.
If a seller offers part performance (e.g., possession or partial payment) on the due date, but the purchaser refuses, they forfeit specific performance. A purchaser who fails to demonstrate willingness or elects not to accept part performance at the appropriate time cannot later claim specific performanceMANJIT SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2019 5 Supreme 1Man Kaur (Dead) By Lrs. VS Hartar Singh Sangha - 2010 7 Supreme 209.
In one case, refusal to execute the sale deed despite part performance led to denial: the purchaser's refusal to execute the sale deed and their election not to accept part performance disqualified them from claiming specific performance laterMANJIT SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2019 5 Supreme 1Jinesh Kumar Jain vs Iris Paintal - Delhi (2012). Courts view this as abandonment: once a party elects not to accept part performance, they cannot resile from that election subsequentlyK. Narendra VS Riviera Apartments Private LTD. - 1999 6 Supreme 8.
Under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, part performance claims fail if the purchaser breached time-sensitive conditions: There was no inability on part of parties to perform rest of the contract or remaining part was waived – In this case, purchaser breached essential condition of contract which altogether disentitles him to claim specific performanceKatta Sujatha Reddy VS Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 4 Supreme 475.
Equity demands fairness. Courts refuse relief if the purchaser's conduct lacks confidence-inspiring integrity. Suit for Specific Performance cannot be decreed where conduct of buyer does not inspire confidence in granting her discretionary relief of specific performanceR. Kandasamy (Since Dead) VS T. R. K. Sarawathy - 2024 8 Supreme 684. Factors include:
In time-essence contracts, breach invites rescission: Vendors were entitled to rescind contract as there was a breach of condition (Time was essence) – When a condition of a contract is breached and consequences ensue for that breach, a party cannot claim equity to escape such consequencesKatta Sujatha Reddy VS Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 4 Supreme 475.
Purchasers aren't always barred:- Consistent proof of readiness/willingness may succeed Sangita Sinha vs Bhawana Bhardwaj & Ors. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 608.- But default clauses limiting relief prevail: The agreement of sale provides that... the party in breach will have the option... to pay a named amount as liquidated damages... the aggrieved party shall not be entitled to specific performanceNagaraj, S/o Late Kempaiah VS Uma, W/o Late A. Lakshmi Narayana - 2016 Supreme(Kar) 447Nagaraj VS Uma.
Alternatives include damages under Contract Act Section 73: promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failureP. R. Nagaraj VS Dhanalakshmi - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 139. Courts may order refund with interest if specific performance fails due to purchaser fault Katta Sujatha Reddy VS Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 4 Supreme 475R. Kandasamy (Since Dead) VS T. R. K. Sarawathy - 2024 8 Supreme 684.
| Case ID | Key Holding ||---------|-------------|| Sangita Sinha vs Bhawana Bhardwaj & Ors. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 608 | Continuous readiness/willingness mandatory; conduct like encashing drafts bars relief. || MANJIT SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2019 5 Supreme 1 | No specific performance post part performance refusal. || Man Kaur (Dead) By Lrs. VS Hartar Singh Sangha - 2010 7 Supreme 209 | Failure to act promptly disqualifies. || P. R. Nagaraj VS Dhanalakshmi - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 139 | Delay + unproven readiness defeats claim. || Katta Sujatha Reddy VS Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 4 Supreme 475 | Time essence breach + delay bars full relief; partial refund possible. |
To bolster claims:- Maintain records of funds and communications showing willingness.- Accept part performance if offered, or explicitly document refusal.- File suits promptly within limitation.- Avoid actions suggesting abandonment, like encashing earnest money.- Consider liquidated damages clauses before signing.
Sellers should document offers of performance to defend against claims.
Generally, a purchaser cannot claim specific performance upon their own failure to show readiness, willingness, or accept part performance. Courts prioritize equity, conduct, and contract terms, often denying relief to inconsistent parties. The legal position clearly indicates that specific performance cannot be entitled by a purchaser who has failed to demonstrate consistent readiness and willingness, or who has elected not to accept part performance at the appropriate timeSangita Sinha vs Bhawana Bhardwaj & Ors. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 608MANJIT SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2019 5 Supreme 1.
Key Takeaways:- Prove continuity of readiness/willingness.- Time and conduct matter immensely.- Explore damages if specific performance risks denial.
This analysis draws from established precedents; outcomes vary by facts. Seek professional advice for tailored guidance.
#SpecificPerformance, #RealEstateLaw, #ContractLaw
C) Whether the 1st respondent/plaintiff is entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance? ... a suit for specific performance. ... Though the conduct of 2nd defendant is also a relevant factor in a suit for specific performance, this Court has already held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance in view of the personal bar under Section 16[c] of #HL_STAR....
In that case, the sellers did not perform their part of the contract and could not insist on specific performance but in the present case the sellers did so and could insist on specific performance. ... It could in a given case disentitle him to specific performance. But that would depend upon whether his proposal regarding a form of warranty to which he was not entitled was a mere proposal regarding the form of the sale or was a refusal to perform without it. ... A p....
So on that ground the plaintiff purchaser is not entitled to any relief in its suit for specific performance.” CONCLUSION 30. ... Upon the failure of the seller to execute the sale deed, Respondent No. 1-buyer filed a suit before the Trial Court, Sub Judge-IV, Patna under the Specific Performance Act, 1963 (“Act 1963)” seeking specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 25th January 2008 and the same was registered as Title ....
promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure. ... The fact that limitation is three years does not mean that a purchaser can wait for 1 or 2 years to file a suit and obtain specific performance. ... Effect of acceptance of performance at time other than that agreed upon:- If, in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor’s failure to perform his promise at the time agreed, the promisee accept....
The reality arising from this economic change cannot continue to be ignored in deciding cases relating to specific performance. ... Dwivedi argued that the buyer had taken prevaricating stands and, therefore, is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance. ... The fact that limitation is three years does not mean that a purchaser can wait for 1 or 2 years to file a suit and obtain specific performance. ... Dwive....
Alleging failure on the part of the defendant to perform the agreement, the suit is filed seeking specific performance of the agreement, with an alternative relief for return of the advance sale consideration. ... c) Plaintiff is entitled to get the costs of the suit as well.” R.F.A. ... No.12 of 2015 Evidently, there is no consideration of the plaintiff's evidence and no reason has been assigned as to why the relief for specific performance was declined. The judgment is unsustainable....
The First Appellate Court had allowed the appeal primarily on the ground that though the claim petitioner is a pendente lite purchaser, the specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced as against the claim petitioner, in view of the fact that he is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration ... The defence under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act can be invoked by a purchaser only if the purchase is subsequent to the first contract, but prior to th....
It is open to the purchaser to set up a defence that the vendor had no title or has defective title in a suit for specific performance by the vendor. But the vendor cannot set up defective in his own title as a defence in a suit for specific performance by the purchaser.”. ... Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for a decree for specific performance. ... I have already held supra that the plaintiff is not #HL_....
performance of oral agreement of sale of the year 1986. ... The Respondent No.1 – herein (original plaintiff) instituted suit for specific performance of contract based on an unregistered sale deed dated 12-02-1986 with respect to the suit property. 5. ... In such circumstances, the Respondent No.1 - herein (original plaintiff) had to institute the Civil Suit No.27/1987 praying for specific performance. 7. The Trial Court allowed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. ... to act with fairness or uprightne....
The fact that limitation is three years does not mean that a purchaser can wait for one or two years to file a suit and obtain specific performance. ... Whether the purchaser is put in possession under the agreement for sale or obtained possession from the vendor otherwise than under Ex.A.1 are all not matters for consideration in deciding whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement for sale or not. ... Whether the plaintiff is entitl....
C. Whether the purchaser is entitled to the relief of specific performance? D. In any case, whether the purchaser is entitled to take benefit of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act in view of the part payment made in respect of the contract? B. Whether the amended Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act is prospective or retrospective in operation?
In view of the plaintiff not having been able to prove that he is the creator/ owner in the two marks as a whole and due to the suppression of material facts by the plaintiff, this Court finds that no relief of injunction can be granted in favour of the plaintiff. Following the aforesaid tests, this Court is of the opinion that the suppression of the fact that the plaintiff refused to accept the cheque of Rs 10 lakhs sent to it by the defendant under registered post with acknowledgment due in terms of Clause 9 of the contract is a material fact. So on that ground the plaintiff purc....
The trial Court held that the sale was not for legal necessity and therefore, decreed the suit in part and directed the vendor to execute the sale deed in respect of his interest. The purchaser preferred an appeal to the High Court and during the pendency of the appeal the mother died. In Silla Chandra v. Ramachandra Sahu (AIR 1964 SC 1789) the Supreme Court had to consider a case where the manager of a family consisting of himself and his mother agreed to sell certain property and further agreed that he and his mother would execute a sale deed in favour of the purchaser within a period of o....
(C) The agreement of sale provides that in the event of breach by either party the purchaser will be entitled to specific performance, but the party in breach will have the option, instead of performing the contract, to pay a named amount as liquidated damages to the aggrieved party and on such payment, the aggrieved party shall not be entitled to specific performance. In such a case, the purchaser will not be entitled to specific performance, as the terms of the contract give the party in default an option of paying money in lieu of specific performance.”
In such a case, the purchaser will not be entitled to specific performance, as the terms of the contract give the party in default an option of paying money in lieu of specific performance.” (C) The agreement of sale provides that in the event of breach by either party the purchaser will be entitled to specific performance, but the party in breach will have the option, instead of performing the contract, to pay a named amount as liquidated damages to the aggrieved party and on such payment, the aggrieved party shall not be entitled to specific performance.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
