In Brief
The appellant, a property owner, and the respondent entered into an agreement for sale of a property dated 5 March 1989 for Rs. 3,43,200. The respondent paid over 50% of the sale consideration before the due date but the appellant refused to execute the sale deed, citing changed terms. The respondent sued for specific performance. Both the trial court and high court decreed the suit. The Supreme Court upheld the decree, holding that the respondent proved continuous readiness and willingness to perform, had the financial capacity to complete the transaction (supported by an LIC loan), and had timely filed the suit. The appellant's acceptance of substantial advance money followed by unjustified refusal constituted breach. Financial readiness does not require actual cash production but evidence of capacity to pay. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.