Role of Readiness and Willingness in Granting Specific Performance (Section 16)

Abstract

The remedy of specific performance, which compels a contracting party to execute their contractual obligations as agreed, stands as an exceptional intervention by a court of equity into the realm of contractual relations. Unlike the common law remedy of damages, which is available as of right upon a breach, specific performance is a discretionary remedy guided by settled principles of equity, justice, and good conscience. At the heart of this discretionary exercise lies the twin doctrine of “readiness and willingness” of the plaintiff. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the foundational role played by the plaintiff’s demonstrated and continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract in securing the decree of specific performance, with particular reference to Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (and its predecessor, Section 24 of the Act of 1877). The doctrine operates not merely as a procedural formality but as a substantive precondition rooted in the equitable maxims of “he who seeks equity must do equity” and “he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” Through a detailed examination of statutory language, landmark judicial pronouncements, and evolving jurisprudence, this article elucidates the conceptual underpinnings, essential components, and practical manifestations of readiness and willingness. It explores what constitutes valid readiness—the financial and operational capacity to perform—and genuine willingness—the consistent conduct and intent to fulfill contractual terms. The analysis covers critical aspects such as the requirement of continuous readiness from the date of the contract until the hearing, exceptions to strict compliance, the plaintiff’s obligation to prove averments of readiness, and the impact of minor breaches or inability to perform at the precise time stipulated. Furthermore, the article addresses contemporary challenges, including the application of the doctrine in complex commercial contracts and development agreements. Ultimately, it concludes that the doctrine of readiness and willingness serves as an indispensable filter, ensuring that the extraordinary power of specific performance is wielded only in favor of those litigants who have themselves demonstrated unwavering commitment to the sanctity of the contract they seek to enforce, thereby maintaining the remedy’s character as an instrument of fairness rather than a tool for oppression or unjust enrichment.

Introduction

The law of contracts provides a framework for enforcing promises, primarily through the award of compensatory damages for their breach. This monetary substitution is the default and historically preferred remedy at common law, based on the principle that where money can adequately compensate for the loss, it should be the solution. However, there exist categories of contracts where damages are manifestly inadequate. For instance, a contract for the sale of a piece of land with unique characteristics, a family heirloom, or shares in a private company may involve a subject matter whose true value is not easily quantifiable in monetary terms. In such scenarios, the law of equity steps in with its in personam remedy of specific performance—a decree issued by the court directing the defendant to perform their promise specifically, thereby giving the plaintiff the very thing they contracted for.

Yet, equity’s intervention is never automatic. It is a jurisdiction founded on conscience and discretion. A plaintiff knocking on the doors of a court of equity must, therefore, satisfy a set of stringent conditions to prove themselves worthy of this extraordinary relief. Foremost among these conditions is the requirement that the plaintiff must show they have been “ready and willing” to perform their own obligations under the contract, not merely in word but in substance and conduct. This principle is codified in India in Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which explicitly bars the grant of specific performance unless the plaintiff proves their readiness and willingness.

The doctrine transcends mere technicality. It is a manifestation of fundamental equitable principles. The maxim “he who seeks equity must do equity” demands that a plaintiff asking for the court’s coercive power to enforce the defendant’s performance must themselves be prepared to honor their side of the bargain. Similarly, the maxim “he who comes into equity must come with clean hands” requires that the plaintiff’s conduct in relation to the transaction must be fair, honorable, and free from fault. A plaintiff who has been dilatory, who has failed to arrange necessary funds, or who has themselves repudiated the contract cannot, in good conscience, demand that the defendant be forced to perform. The doctrine thus ensures mutuality and prevents the remedy from being used as an instrument of unfair advantage.

This article delves deep into the anatomy of the readiness and willingness doctrine. It begins by tracing its statutory embodiment in Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, dissecting its clauses and explanations. The core of the discussion then bifurcates into a detailed examination of the two constitutive elements: “Readiness,” which refers to the plaintiff’s capacity and preparedness—financial and otherwise—to execute their part, and “Willingness,” which pertains to their conduct, intent, and adherence to the contract’s terms. The analysis is fortified by a wealth of judicial precedents that have shaped and refined the doctrine’s application. The article further explores the critical concept of continuity—the requirement that readiness and willingness must persist from the date of the contract until the hearing of the suit. It also addresses practical nuances, such as the burden of proof, the effect of the plaintiff’s own breach, exceptions to the rule, and the application of the doctrine in modern transactional contexts. Through this comprehensive exploration, the article aims to establish that readiness and willingness are not just procedural hurdles but the very ethical and juridical bedrock upon which the discretionary grant of specific performance rests.

I. Statutory Foundation: Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

The doctrine of readiness and willingness, long nurtured in the courts of equity, found explicit statutory recognition in India in the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Section 24(c) of the 1877 Act provided that specific performance could not be enforced in favor of a person who “has become incapable of performing, or violates any essential term of, the contract that on his part remains to be performed.” This was refined and elaborated in the 1963 Act.

Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, titled “Personal bars to relief,” is the governing provision. It states:

“Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person—

(a) who has obtained substituted performance of contract under section 20; or

(b) who has become incapable of performing, or violates any essential term of, the contract that on his part remains to be performed, or acts in fraud of the contract, or wilfully acts at variance with, or in subversion of, the relation intended to be established by the contract; or

(c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.”

Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (c)—

(i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court;

(ii) the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.”

Clause (c), coupled with the Explanation, is the central statutory repository of the doctrine. It imposes a dual obligation on the plaintiff:

» Averment: The plaintiff must expressly plead in the plaint that they have performed or have always been ready and willing to perform their essential obligations.

» Proof: The plaintiff must lead evidence to substantiate this averment at the trial.

The failure to comply with either limb is fatal to the suit. The Explanation provides crucial clarifications. Sub-section (i) relieves the plaintiff from the impractical burden of perpetually tendering money, recognizing that readiness with funds is what matters. Sub-section (ii) mandates that readiness and willingness must be in accordance with the “true construction” of the contract, meaning the plaintiff’s understanding of their obligations must be legally correct.

II. Deconstructing “Readiness and Willingness”

While often used as a composite phrase, “readiness” and “willingness” are distinct yet interconnected concepts, each addressing a different facet of the plaintiff’s position.

A. Readiness: The Capacity and Preparedness to Perform

“Readiness” refers to the plaintiff’s financial and operational capacity to fulfill their part of the contract at the relevant time(s). It is an objective condition, focusing on ability and preparedness.

» Financial Capacity: In contracts for sale, this is the most critical aspect. The plaintiff must demonstrate that they had, or had arranged for, the necessary funds to pay the consideration at the agreed time and thereafter. This does not require a perpetual formal tender (per Explanation i), but does require convincing evidence. Courts have considered:

» Proof of Funds: Bank statements, fixed deposit receipts, credible testimony regarding cash availability, or firm commitments from financial institutions.

» Source of Funds: The plaintiff must show a legitimate and concrete source. Vague assertions of “having sufficient means” without corroboration are typically insufficient.

» Timing: The capacity must exist at the time performance was due from the plaintiff. A plaintiff who arranges funds only after the defendant’s breach or after filing the suit may fail the test of continuous readiness.

» Operational Capacity: In contracts beyond simple sales (e.g., development agreements, joint ventures), readiness may involve securing necessary permissions, having technical expertise, or mobilizing resources. The plaintiff must show they were in a position to execute their obligations.

» Readiness is Not a Theoretical State: It must be tangible and provable. The celebrated case of N.P. Thirugnanam (Dead) by LRs. vs. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao & Ors. (1995) crystallized this principle. The Supreme Court held that readiness and willingness cannot be a mere mantra recited in the plaint; it must be demonstrated by conduct and evidence. A plaintiff who dithers, seeks repeated extensions without just cause, or fails to take unequivocal steps to arrange money may be deemed not ready.

B. Willingness: The Conduct and Intent to Perform

“Willingness” is subjective, pertaining to the plaintiff’s conduct, demeanor, and intention. It is assessed through the plaintiff’s actions and omissions in relation to the contract. Willingness signifies an unwavering resolve to abide by the terms of the contract and a consistent posture of being eager to complete the transaction.

» Conduct as the Barometer: Willingness is gauged by:

» Promptness in Performance: Taking steps to perform on or before the stipulated date.

» Communications: Expressing a clear desire to complete the transaction through letters, notices, or actions.

» Response to Defendant’s Actions: If the defendant makes a lawful demand or sets a time for performance, the willing plaintiff responds positively and prepares to comply.

» Absence of Repudiation: The plaintiff must not have said or done anything that amounts to a renunciation of their own obligations under the contract.

» Adherence to Contract Terms: Willingness must be to perform the contract “according to its true construction” (Explanation ii). A plaintiff who insists on a performance different from what the contract stipulates—for example, demanding a title different from what was agreed, or seeking to modify essential terms—is not a willing plaintiff. In Motilal Jain v. Ramdasi Devi, the Supreme Court emphasized that a plaintiff who was always ready and willing to perform the contract “as per the original agreement” alone can claim specific performance.

» Willingness vs. Readiness: A plaintiff may have the money (readiness) but may be deliberately holding back due to a change of heart or to exploit a market shift (lack of willingness). Conversely, a plaintiff may be fervently willing but financially incapable. Both elements must coexist.

III. The Imperative of Continuity

One of the most demanding aspects of the doctrine is that readiness and willingness must not be a one-time event but a continuous state. The statutory phrase “has always been ready and willing” in Section 16(c) underscores this. The plaintiff must prove this continuity from the date of the contract up to the date of the decree, or at least until the hearing of the suit.

» From Execution to Breach: The plaintiff must be ready and willing on the date their own performance fell due.

» During the Period of Breach: Even after the defendant’s breach, the plaintiff must maintain their readiness and show a persistent desire to have the contract performed, often through legal notices.

» During Litigation: The conduct during the pendency of the suit is also relevant. A plaintiff who unreasonably delays prosecution of the suit or shows indifference may be seen as lacking continuous willingness. However, the filing of the suit itself is a strong manifestation of willingness.

The case of R.C. Chandiok & Anr. v. Chuni Lal Sabharwal & Ors. is instructive. The Court held that the continuity requirement is not a rigid, literal demand for proof of capacity every single day, but it requires the plaintiff to show that at all material times, they were in a position to perform and had never resiled from their obligation.

IV. Burden and Standard of Proof

Section 16(c) unequivocally places the burden of averring and proving readiness and willingness on the plaintiff. This is an exception to the general rule that a plaintiff need only prove their case on a preponderance of probabilities. In specific performance suits, the proof must be clear, convincing, and consistent.

» Pleading (Averment): The plaint must contain specific, clear, and unambiguous statements asserting the plaintiff’s continuous readiness and willingness. A vague or omitted averment is a fatal defect that cannot be cured by evidence. As held in Ouseph Varghese v. Joseph Aley, the absence of such an averment is not a mere technicality but goes to the root of the matter.

» Evidence (Proof): At trial, the plaintiff must lead concrete evidence—documentary and oral—to substantiate the plea. This includes evidence of financial capacity, correspondence showing eagerness, and testimony demonstrating consistent intent. The defendant can, of course, lead evidence to rebut this, such as showing the plaintiff sought illegal modifications or was financially incapable.

V. Nuances, Exceptions, and Judicial Interpretation

The application of the doctrine is not monolithic. Courts have developed nuanced interpretations to do substantive justice.

» Prevention of Performance by Defendant: If the defendant has clearly and unequivocally repudiated the contract or has made it impossible for the plaintiff to perform (e.g., by selling the property to a third party), the plaintiff’s obligation to make a formal tender or demonstrate further steps may be dispensed with. In such cases, the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness up to the point of prevention, coupled with a prompt approach to the court, suffices. This is encapsulated in the maxim “a party cannot take advantage of his own wrong.”

» Waiver: If the defendant has, by words or conduct, waived a particular mode or time of performance by the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness is judged against the modified requirement.

» Substantial vs. Literal Compliance: Equity looks at the substance. A minor delay or a trivial breach by the plaintiff, which does not go to the root of the contract, may not defeat the claim if the plaintiff was otherwise ready and willing in substance. The focus is on “essential terms” (Section 16(c)).

» Inability at Precise Time: If a plaintiff was not ready with funds on the exact day but demonstrates a genuine, abiding intention to purchase and arranges funds within a reasonable time thereafter, courts may exercise discretion in their favor, especially if the defendant was also not ready. The case of Gomathinayagam Pillai v. Palaniswami Nadar is a classic example where the plaintiffs, though not ready on the exact date, were found to be continually ready and willing in substance.

» Effect of Plaintiff’s Own Breach: If the plaintiff has themselves committed a breach of an essential term, they are barred under Section 16(b) as well as (c). For instance, a buyer who fails to pay a substantial installment on time may be seen as violating an essential term, depending on the contract’s construction.

» Complex and Commercial Contracts: In modern development agreements or joint ventures, assessing readiness and willingness becomes more complex. The plaintiff must show they have taken all requisite corporate decisions, applied for necessary licenses (if contingent on them), and were poised to contribute their share of resources or expertise. The courts examine the commercial realities and the sequence of conditional obligations.

VI. Conclusion: The Doctrine as the Guardian of Equitable Conscience

The doctrine of readiness and willingness, codified in Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is far more than a procedural technicality in a suit for specific performance. It is the operational expression of equity’s conscience. By mandating that only a plaintiff who comes to court with clean hands, having demonstrated an unwavering commitment to their own contractual promises, can invoke the court’s most coercive contractual remedy, the doctrine preserves the essential character of specific performance as an exceptional, discretionary relief.

» It serves multiple vital functions: it ensures mutuality in equity, preventing a plaintiff from enforcing a burden on the defendant that they themselves were unwilling to bear; it promotes certainty and good faith in contractual dealings by rewarding diligent and compliant parties; and it acts as a filter against speculative litigation, where a plaintiff with no real intention or capacity to perform seeks to tie up property or gain a tactical advantage.

The judicial evolution of the doctrine, from its roots in English equity to its detailed elaboration in Indian case law, reflects a persistent effort to balance two competing interests: the sanctity of contract and the prevention of unjust enrichment. The insistence on continuous readiness and willingness, judged on both capacity and conduct, ensures this balance is maintained. While the requirements are strict, the courts have wisely infused flexibility through principles of prevention, waiver, and substantial compliance, ensuring that the doctrine serves justice rather than rigid formalism.

In an era of increasingly sophisticated contracts, the doctrine’s core principles remain timeless. They remind all contracting parties that the right to demand perfect performance from another is a privilege earned only by one’s own demonstrated fidelity to the agreement. As such, readiness and willingness stand as an indispensable and enduring pillar in the equitable architecture of specific performance.

Here are some questions and answers on the topic:

Q1: What is the fundamental equitable principle behind the requirement of a plaintiff's readiness and willingness in a suit for specific performance?

Answer: The fundamental equitable principle is encapsulated in the maxims "he who seeks equity must do equity" and "he who comes into equity must come with clean hands." Specific performance is a discretionary remedy granted by a court of equity, not a common law right. Therefore, a plaintiff who approaches the court seeking this extraordinary relief must demonstrate that their own conduct has been fair, honorable, and faithful to the contract. The principle ensures mutuality; it would be against conscience for a court to use its coercive power to force the defendant to perform their obligations if the plaintiff has themselves been unwilling or unable to perform their own part. The doctrine prevents the remedy from becoming an instrument of oppression or unfair advantage, ensuring it is granted only to those who have shown a consistent commitment to the sanctity of the contract they seek to enforce.

Q2: How does Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, structure the plaintiff's obligation regarding readiness and willingness?

Answer: Section 16(c) imposes a dual and mandatory obligation on the plaintiff, structuring it as a condition precedent to obtaining the remedy. First, the plaintiff must aver it in the plaint. This means there must be a clear, explicit, and unambiguous pleading stating that the plaintiff "has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform" the essential terms of the contract which were to be performed by them. Second, the plaintiff must prove this averment by leading evidence at the trial. The failure to comply with either limb—deficient pleading or insufficient proof—is fatal to the suit. The section thus creates a structured burden where the plaintiff must both plead and prove their continuous readiness and willingness, making it a substantive bar to relief rather than a mere procedural formality.

Q3: Explain the key distinction between 'readiness' and 'willingness' as interpreted by the courts.

Answer: While interrelated, 'readiness' and 'willingness' address distinct aspects of the plaintiff's position. Readiness is primarily an objective test of capacity and preparedness. It refers to the plaintiff's financial and operational ability to fulfill their contractual obligations at the requisite time. For instance, in a sale agreement, readiness is proven by demonstrating the availability of funds or firm arrangements for financing. Willingness, on the other hand, is a subjective test of conduct and intent. It is gauged by the plaintiff's actions, demeanor, and consistency in showing an earnest desire to perform the contract according to its true terms. Conduct such as prompt communication, taking steps towards performance, and not repudiating the contract indicates willingness. A plaintiff may have funds (readiness) but may delay intentionally (lack of willingness), or be fervently eager (willingness) but financially incapable (lack of readiness). Both elements must coexist for the plaintiff to satisfy the doctrine.

Q4: What is meant by the 'continuity' of readiness and willingness, and why is it crucial?

Answer: The 'continuity' requirement, derived from the statutory phrase "has always been ready and willing," means that the plaintiff's preparedness and intent to perform must persist from the date of the contract up to at least the hearing of the suit. It is not enough to have been ready and willing only on the date the contract was signed or only on the date of filing the suit. The plaintiff must demonstrate that this state of being ready and willing was maintained throughout the critical period: at the time their own performance fell due, during any period of negotiation or dispute following the defendant's breach, and during the litigation itself. This requirement is crucial because it validates the plaintiff's good faith. It shows that their claim is not opportunistic or speculative but is based on a sustained, genuine commitment to the contract, justifying the court's exercise of its discretionary equitable power in their favor.

Q5: In what circumstances can a plaintiff be excused from making an actual tender of money or precise performance to prove readiness and willingness?

Answer: A plaintiff can be excused from actual tender or precise performance primarily in two circumstances. First, as per Explanation (i) to Section 16, in a contract involving payment of money, the plaintiff is not required to actually tender the money or deposit it in court unless specifically directed by the court. What must be proven is the capacity and readiness to pay—that the plaintiff had the necessary funds or arrangements in place. Second, and more broadly, the requirement of demonstrating further steps towards performance is dispensed with when the defendant has clearly repudiated the contract or has made it impossible for the plaintiff to perform. For example, if the defendant unequivocally states they will not sell the property or sells it to a third party, the law does not require the plaintiff to engage in a futile act. In such cases, the plaintiff must show readiness and willingness up to the point of the defendant's prevention and thereafter promptly approach the court. This aligns with the equitable principle that a party cannot take advantage of their own wrong to demand futile formalities from the other side.

Disclaimer: The content shared in this blog is intended solely for general informational and educational purposes. It provides only a basic understanding of the subject and should not be considered as professional legal advice. For specific guidance or in-depth legal assistance, readers are strongly advised to consult a qualified legal professional.