In Brief
The appellants and respondents entered into agreements in 1991 and MOUs in 1994 for the sale of property in Chennai. Sale completion was delayed due to income tax proceedings. After the Writ Petition was disposed in 1998, the appellants filed suits for specific performance in 2000. The High Court's Division Bench reversed the Single Judge's decree, citing delay and the appellants' conduct. The Supreme Court restored the decree, holding that the agreement required payment only 'at the time of registration', not immediately upon Writ Petition disposal. Delay occasioned by pending related litigation does not disentitle a plaintiff to specific performance. The appellants' partial possession and attempts to obtain vacant possession did not justify denial of equitable relief. Property price escalation cannot be grounds to refuse specific performance.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.