Synopsis

The plaintiff sued for specific performance of a registered agreement of sale dated 6th September 2012 for a property valued at Rs.92,00,000/-, under which he paid Rs.5,00,000 as advance and agreed to pay the balance of Rs.87,00,000 within three months. He filed the suit only on 5th September 2015 – nearly three years after the agreement. The defendant contended it was a loan transaction, not a sale. The trial court decreed specific performance. In first appeal, the High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness from the date of the agreement till the decree, as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The bank passbook showed negligible funds until 2016 when Rs.90 lakhs was deposited during evidence, but no proof that funds were available at the time performance was due. The appeal was partly allowed: the decree for specific performance was set aside, but the defendant was directed to refund the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of the agreement.

Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice D K Singh and Honourable Mr. Justice T. M. Nadaf

Date of Judgment: 2nd April 2026

Citation: Regular First Appeal No. 2168 of 2018 (NC:2026:KHC:18152-DB) (unreported)

Core Law: Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) (readiness and willingness as condition precedent for specific performance); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96, Order 41 Rule 31 (first appeal – power to re‑appreciate evidence); Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54 (period for suit for specific performance)

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) (plaintiff must aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract); Explanation (ii) (plaintiff must aver performance or readiness and willingness according to true construction of contract)

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 (appeals from original decrees); Order 41 Rule 31 (judgment of first appellate court – points for determination, decision with reasons)

• Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 54 (three years for suit for specific performance from date fixed for performance or when plaintiff has notice that performance is refused)

Key legal principles applied

Readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) – continuous requirement: The plaintiff must not only plead but prove by cogent evidence that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract from the date of the agreement till the decree and even thereafter until execution. Readiness refers to financial capacity; willingness refers to conduct and intention. Both are mandatory conditions precedent for specific performance.

First appellate court’s duty to re‑examine readiness and willingness: An appeal under Section 96 is a continuation of the original proceedings. The first appellate court is duty‑bound to re‑appreciate evidence and examine whether the plaintiff has proved continuous readiness and willingness, even if the trial court answered the issue in favour of the plaintiff. Non‑observance of Order 41 Rule 31 leads to infirmity.

Time limits specified in the agreement cannot be ignored: Even if time is not the essence of the contract, the time‑limits prescribed by the parties for performance have significance. The court will apply greater scrutiny and strictness when considering whether the purchaser was ready and willing, especially when the suit is filed at th

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