Summary
The Supreme Court maintained refusal of specific performance because the purchaser had not established readiness and willingness, but reduced the money decree to the admitted Rs 26,000 advance. The High Court had speculatively inferred an additional Rs 6.75 lakh payment from delivery of title deeds despite the absence of reliable particulars or proof. Only the admitted advance was ordered refunded, with simple interest at 9% annually from payment until realisation.
Issues
- Whether the purchaser was entitled to specific performance despite the adverse readiness-and-willingness finding.
- Whether alleged additional payment could be inferred from possession of title documents.
- What refund and interest were justified.
Held
- The purchaser did not establish when or how the alleged additional Rs 6.75 lakh was paid. His notice asserted readiness to pay the full balance after the admitted advance, without mentioning the alleged additional payment or delivery of title deeds, and there was no documentary corroboration. (¶¶ 5–6, 10–12)
- The High Court could not award the additional amount on a presumption that it must have been paid when title deeds were handed over. The claimed payment was unproved on this record. (¶ 8–12)
- Specific performance remained unavailable in view of the finding that the purchaser was not ready and willing to perform. Equities were settled by refunding the admitted advance with 9% simple annual interest. (¶ 13–14)
Result
Purchaser’s appeal dismissed and vendor’s appeal allowed. Vendor directed to refund Rs 26,000 with simple interest at 9% per annum from payment until realisation, replacing the larger money decree; specific performance refused.