Synopsis

This judgment by the Bombay High Court allows a first appeal filed by the legal heirs of a deceased plaintiff against a trial court order that had rejected their claim for specific performance of an oral agreement for sale of a flat. The original agreement was entered into in 1978 for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-, of which Rs. 30,000/- was paid as earnest money. The trial court, while holding that the agreement was not terminated, refused specific performance on the ground that the plaintiffs had not proved their readiness and willingness, and because the defendant's widow was residing in the flat. The High Court reversed this, holding that the plaintiff's letter of 01.09.1981 demonstrated readiness and willingness, and that non-deposit of the balance amount in court was not fatal. The court decreed specific performance, but, balancing equities, directed the plaintiffs to pay an additional Rs. 25 lakhs (over the balance of Rs. 20,000) to the defendants, considering the steep rise in property prices since 1978.

1.  Heading for the judgment

Bombay High Court decrees specific performance of 1978 oral agreement, holds that non-deposit of balance consideration is not fatal to proof of readiness and willingness, and balances equities by ordering additional payment.

Citation: Shri M.K. Madhavan (deleted) & Ors. v. Shri R. Subramaniam (deleted) & Ors., First Appeal No. 235 of 2008, decided on 01.04.2026 (Bombay High Court)
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla (Single Judge)
Core Law: Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Sections 16(c), 20); Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

2. Legal framework

This judgment provides a detailed exposition of the law on specific performance, particularly the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the principles of equitable relief under Section 20.

• Specific Relief Act, 1963:
  Section 16(c): Mandates that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must plead and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The court examined the meaning of "readiness" (capacity to pay) and "willingness" (intention to perform). The Explanation to Section 16 clarifies that actual tender or deposit of money is not essential unless directed by the court.
  Section 20: 

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.