In Brief
The appellant purchased land in violation of a trial court injunction order. The plaintiff, an advocate, claimed specific performance of an alleged 1977 agreement to sell the land for ₹3,000, having paid ₹2,500 earnest money to the defendant's deceased father for medical treatment. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court dismissed it, finding the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness after a six-year delay. The High Court reinstated the trial court's decree. The Supreme Court held that a party seeking specific performance must prove continuous readiness and willingness. The plaintiff's six-year silence and the suspicious circumstances—that money was taken for treatment and land worth much more than ₹3,000 was purportedly sold—negated any right to specific performance. The Court restored the first appellate court's dismissal."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.