Summary
The Court upheld refusal of specific performance where the buyer remained inactive for nearly twenty-three months after the seller unequivocally repudiated the agreement. This conduct, rather than delay alone, defeated proof of continuous readiness and willingness. Subsequent purchasers could raise that statutory defect, and their own alleged lack of bona fides did not cure it. The absence of a challenge to the intervening conveyances was an additional obstacle.
Issues
- Whether the buyer proved continuous readiness and willingness despite prolonged inaction after repudiation.
- Whether subsequent purchasers could invoke Section 16(c).
Held
- Mere delay was not by itself decisive, but silence after the seller abandoned registration of the contemplated power of attorney supported the finding that the buyer was not continuously ready and willing. (¶¶ 11–12, 17)
- Section 16(c) imposed an obligation on the court and could be invoked by any defendant, including purchasers preceding the suit. The different completed-conveyance facts in M.M.S. Investments did not assist this buyer. (¶ 13–17)
- On these facts, failure to seek cancellation of the known intervening sale deeds further impeded specific performance. Alleged lack of bona fides in those purchases did not remove the plaintiff’s own statutory failure. (¶ 17–18)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court dismissal of the specific-performance suit upheld.