In Brief
A buyer and seller agreed to transfer a vacant plot in December 1990 for ₹3 lakhs. The buyer paid ₹25,000 as earnest money but filed a suit for specific performance only in December 1993—nearly three years later and at the very end of the limitation period. The buyer claimed he was ready to pay the balance but had not obtained mandatory statutory clearance under land-ceiling laws, sought conditions not in the original agreement, and produced proof of funds only years after the suit. The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of the suit, holding that specific performance requires continuous readiness and willingness from contract execution to judgment. A substantial unexplained delay in filing suit, combined with the buyer's failure to demonstrate financial capacity or cooperative conduct during the relevant period, defeats this equitable remedy despite falling within the statutory three-year window.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.