In Brief
The appellant owners agreed to sell an agricultural property to the respondent for Rs. 1,25,000 in 1990. The respondent paid Rs. 35,000 in advance but failed to pay the balance within the six-month period, citing the property's mortgage as a reason. The respondent sued for specific performance. The lower courts granted the relief, but the Supreme Court held that the respondent failed to prove continuous "readiness and willingness" to perform the contract as required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The Court also found inequity in granting specific performance after 30 years, given property price escalation. The appeal was allowed and the respondent was ordered refund of Rs. 35,000 with 6% interest instead.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.