In Brief
A property sale agreement from 1990 for Rs. 1,25,000 went unperformed, and the respondent sued for specific performance three years later. The Supreme Court held that the respondent failed to prove continuous willingness to perform: he did not pay the balance amount within the agreed period, did not communicate with the sellers for years, and filed a suit for injunction rather than specific performance. Over three decades later, with property values substantially escalated, the Court refused specific performance on equitable grounds. The Court ordered refund of the advance with 6% interest, finding that an old contract should not be enforced against defendants not at fault when time and changed circumstances would cause injustice."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.