Summary
The purchaser failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness to complete the land sale. The courts below treated financial means as sufficient and misread the sellers’ obligation to convey an unencumbered title as requiring prior discharge of the mortgage before payment. The purchaser’s inactivity, delayed suit and lack of evidence of funds during the contractual period defeated specific performance. The Court also declined discretionary relief in the circumstances, directing refund of the advance with interest.
Issues
- Whether the purchaser proved readiness and willingness to perform the sale agreement.
- Whether the mortgage clause excused non-payment and specific performance remained equitable.
Provisions considered
- Section 16(c), as applicable to the dispute, Specific Relief Act, 1963The purchaser bore the burden of proving continuous readiness and willingness; means alone and bare assertions did not satisfy it. (¶¶ 13-18, 24-31)
- Section 20, before the 2018 substitution, Specific Relief Act, 1963The equitable discretion applied to this dispute required assessment of conduct, delay and fairness, rather than automatic enforcement. (¶ 32-36)
Held
- Readiness concerns financial capacity; willingness concerns conduct. Both must be established by the plaintiff throughout the relevant period. The trial court failed to frame the necessary issue or meaningfully assess conduct, and the appellate courts wrongly shifted the burden to the sellers. (¶¶ 14-18, 23-26, 31)
- The sellers had to convey free of encumbrances upon receipt of the balance price. The agreement did not make prior mortgage discharge a condition excusing payment or an indication of willingness to pay. The additional advance receipt referred to family expenses, not proof of an obligation to discharge the mortgage with that sum. (¶¶ 19-20, 27-28)
- The purchaser showed no communication seeking completion within the stipulated period and responded only after the sellers’ notice. His delay in seeking specific performance, other inconsistent conduct and later withdrawal of the deposit counted against willingness. Income-tax payment and passbooks for accounts opened later did not establish funds during the contractual period. (¶ 29-31)
- Efflux of time and price escalation alone do not necessarily defeat specific performance. Here they operated with the purchaser’s deficient conduct, making discretionary relief inappropriate under the law applicable to the dispute. Refund of Rs35,000 was directed with 6 per cent annual interest from institution of the specific-performance suit until payment. (¶ 32-38)
Result
Appeal allowed; specific-performance decree set aside; sellers to refund Rs35,000 with 6 per cent annual interest from filing of the specific-performance suit until payment.