In Brief
A property owner sued for specific performance of an agreement to sell a house for Rs 30,000, claiming he had paid Rs 15,000 as earnest money. After promulgation of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, he served notice on the defendant to obtain requisite permission and execute the deed, but the defendant denied the agreement. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed it, finding the plaintiff failed to aver and prove his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligation—a mandatory requirement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that specific performance cannot be granted without proof of such readiness and willingness. The plaintiff's plaint lacked necessary averments, and his testimony contained no categorical assertion of readiness. A belated amendment application was properly rejected as too late.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.