In Brief
Appellants and respondents agreed to sell a property for Rs. 21,000, with Rs. 3,000 as advance and balance to be paid within six months (by 21.05.1991). Respondents paid only Rs. 7,000 within this period and sent notice 6.5 years later (18.11.1997), then filed suit for specific performance. The trial court dismissed it, but lower appellate courts decreed it. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that although time is not the essence of immovable property contracts unless expressly stated, the stipulated timeframe has significance. Respondents' total inaction for 6.5 years, coupled with threefold property price rise and appellants' subsequent sale to a third party, made specific performance inequitable. Court emphasized readiness and willingness must be specifically pleaded and proved.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.