Continuous Readiness, Property Identification, and Specific Performance: A Study of A.S. No. 636 of 2019 (Madras High Court) Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete, Madras High Court, 2 January 2026 Abstract: The Madras High Court, in A.S. No. 636 of 2019, dealt with a dispute regarding specific performance of a registered sale agreement executed in 2004 involving immovable property in Puducherry. The Court affirmed the trial court’s refusal of specific performance while setting

Continuous Readiness, Property Identification, and Specific Performance: A Study of A.S. No. 636 of 2019 (Madras High Court)
Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete, Madras High Court, 2 January 2026 Abstract:
The Madras High Court, in A.S. No. 636 of 2019, dealt with a dispute regarding specific performance of a registered sale agreement executed in 2004 involving immovable property in Puducherry. The Court affirmed the trial court’s refusal of specific performance while setting aside an unclaimed refund of advance payment. This judgment underscores the twin pillars of specific performance jurisprudence: continuous readiness and willingness of the plaintiff and clarity in the description of the property.
I. Factual Matrix
The appellant, Kesavaraman, entered into a registered agreement of sale dated 18.08.2004 with the late Narayanan for property measuring 2240 sq. ft. in re-survey No.110/3, paying an advance of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of a total consideration of Rs. 5,30,000/-. The agreement stipulated completion within three months, without specifying remedies for the plaintiff’s failure to pay the balance. The suit property contained a building, which was omitted from the agreement.
The appellant alleged delayed delivery of original title deeds and incorrect survey numbers. The defendants contended that the plaintiff had neither demonstrated readiness to pay the balance nor acted promptly, and that the re-survey number cited was correct. The trial court dismissed the suit for specific performance but directed a refund of the advance amount. II. Legal Issues
The High Court examined:
Whether the plaintiff had demonstrated continuous readiness and willingness under Section 16 and Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Whether the discrepancy in re-survey numbers and omission of the building affected identity of the property.
Whether the trial court correctly directed a refund of the advance in the absence of a specific claim.
III. Court’s Analysis
A. Continuous Readiness and Willingness
The Court emphasized that readiness and willingness must be maintained throughout the contractual period, not merely at suit institution. Kesavaraman remained silent for nearly two years before raising the re-survey number issue, thereby demonstrating inactivity and lack of genuine intent to perform. Reliance on precedents such as Coromandel Indag Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Garuda Chit and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2011 8 SCC 601) and Zarina Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam (2015 1 SCC 705) was examined, but the Court distinguished them on factual matrices, observing that the present delay and inactivity negated equitable relief.
B. Property Description and Identity
The Court noted that the agreement described only one survey number, while the property consisted of two distinct survey numbers totaling 2476 sq. ft. The omission of the building and second survey number went to the very identity of the property, unlike precedents such as Nagarathinam v. S. Jaya, where omission was immaterial because identity and boundaries were undisputed.
C. Refund of Advance Payment
Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act bars refunds unless specifically claimed. The High
Court invoked the Supreme Court’s guidance in K.R. Suresh v. R. Poornima (Civil Appeal No. 5822 of 2025) to set aside the trial court’s refund order, emphasizing that general prayers cannot substitute for specific claims.
IV. Observations
Equitable Relief is Strictly Controlled: The case reinforces that specific performance cannot be granted absent continuous readiness and willingness.
Clarity of Contractual Terms: Omissions in property description, especially regarding boundaries and built structures, may defeat the plaintiff’s claim if identity is contested.
Procedural Compliance: Courts cannot grant unclaimed reliefs suo motu; specific pleadings or amendment applications are mandatory.
V. Conclusion
The High Court’s dismissal of the appeal underscores a strict, principled approach to specific performance, balancing equitable doctrines with procedural and substantive safeguards. This case serves as a critical reference for practitioners and scholars on the interplay between contractual diligence, equitable readiness, and property identification in immovable property disputes.
Citation:
Kesavaraman v. Patchaiammal & Ors., A.S. No. 636 of 2019, Madras High Court, DR. A.D. Maria Clete, J., 02.01.2026.