In Brief
A man sought specific performance of a 1975 agreement to sell his house. The trial court granted the relief, but the appeal court reversed it, finding the plaintiff had not proven his continuous readiness to pay the remaining amount. The High Court upheld the reversal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under the Specific Relief Act, a plaintiff claiming specific performance must prove he has always been ready and willing to perform his contractual obligations. The plaint and evidence here lacked material assertions establishing such readiness and willingness. The Court also rejected the plaintiff's belated attempt to amend the plaint at the appellate stage as impermissible.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.