Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance, Restores Trial Court's Refusal Due to Plaintiff's Contradictory Conduct

Case Snapshot

Case Name: V.N.A.S. Chandran v. S. Venila & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 776

Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria

Date of Judgment: July 31, 2026

Area of Law: Specific Performance, Contract Law, Civil Procedure

The Judgment in One Line

Plaintiffs held disentitled to specific performance due to inconsistent conduct, lack of readiness and willingness, and failure to approach Court with clean hands.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment reaffirms that specific performance is an equitable remedy and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Court restored the Trial Court's refusal of specific performance, holding that plaintiffs who adopt contradictory positions—seeking recovery of money in a criminal complaint while simultaneously seeking specific performance in a civil suit—cannot claim the benefit of an equitable remedy. The judgment emphasizes that continuous readiness and willingness must be proved from the date of agreement till the decree. It also clarifies that a respondent supporting a decree can challenge adverse findings without filing cross-objections, and that no declaratory relief is needed when termination is by unilateral repudiation.

Background

The appellant (Defendant No. 1) owned a property in Udhagamandalam. He entered into an Agreement to Sell with Plaintiff No. 1 on April 1, 2004, for a consideration of ₹2.25 crores. On the same date, he executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Plaintiff No. 2 (Plaintiff No. 1's husband), authorising him to sell the property and receive consideration.

A partition suit filed by Defendant No. 1's daughter (Defendant No. 2) was pending, and the Agreement stipulated that sale would be completed within 60 days of setting aside the ex-parte preliminary decree in that suit. The decree was set aside on April 6, 2005.

Plaintiffs claimed they paid ₹85 lakhs as advance; Defendant claimed only ₹60 lakhs. Two cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Plaintiff No. 2, u

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