In Brief
A property dispute spanning decades involved an agreement to sell dated 1976 for Rs. 56,000, of which Rs. 40,000 was paid before the vendor surreptitiously sold to others. The trial court decreed specific performance; the First Appellate Court confirmed it; but the High Court reversed on grounds of defective pleading under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court restored the decree, holding that readiness and willingness must be judged holistically by substance not form, concurrent factual findings cannot be lightly reversed, and discretion to grant specific performance should favour an honest buyer deprived of possession by wrongful defendants.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.