In Brief
Kamal Kumar sued for specific performance of a land contract against Premlata Joshi and others. The trial court and High Court both dismissed his claim, finding he was neither ready nor willing to perform his contractual obligations. He also sought refund of earnest money, but the courts held it should be adjusted as agreed. The Supreme Court upheld both lower courts' concurrent findings, holding that readiness and willingness to perform is the most critical requirement for specific performance. Since the plaintiff failed to prove this essential element, supported by proper pleadings and evidence under the Specific Relief Act, the Court dismissed his appeal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.