Madras HC denied specific performance because buyer didn’t prove continuous readiness/willingness: missed timeline (₹3 L due Apr 2011, paid late Feb 2012; balance only in 2016). Trial court decree set aside; seller must refund ₹7 L advance

[10/03, 07:54] sekarreporter1: “Skip to content

Home – News – Madras High Court: Specific performance denied where buyer failed to prove readiness and willingness — “Seller ordered to refund ₹7 lakh advance”

Posted inNews
Madras High Court: Specific performance denied where buyer failed to prove readiness and willingness — “Seller ordered to refund ₹7 lakh advance”
Posted by
Rawlaw
March 9, 2026
No Comments
Bookmark
Share this article
1. Court’s decision
The Madras High Court partly allowed an appeal filed by the defendant challenging a trial court decree that had granted specific performance of a sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff.

After re-evaluating the evidence, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had not demonstrated the mandatory requirement of readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligations within the stipulated period.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the trial court’s decree directing execution of the sale deed. However, considering the admitted receipt of advance money by the defendant, the Court granted a money decree ordering refund of ₹7,00,000 with interest.

2. Facts
The dispute concerned an agreement for sale of immovable property entered into on 20 December 2010. The defendant owned several parcels of land purchased through registered sale deeds.

The parties agreed to a total sale consideration of ₹13,00,000. On the date of the agreement, the plaintiff paid ₹4,00,000 as advance and the parties agreed on a schedule for payment of the remaining amount.

Under the agreement, the plaintiff was required to pay ₹3,00,000 on or before 30 April 2011 and the remaining ₹6,00,000 on or before 30 April 2012. However, disputes arose regarding compliance with these payment obligations, leading to litigation between the parties.

3. Issues
The High Court examined several questions arising in the appeal.

The primary issue was whether the plaintiff had established continuous readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the sale agreement.

Another issue was whether the trial court was justified in granting specific performance despite delays and failure to comply with the payment schedule.

The Court also examined whether the plaintiff could claim protection of possession based on the unregistered sale agreement.

4. Petitioner’s arguments
The defendant argued that the plaintiff had clearly failed to comply with the terms of the agreement.

Under the contract, the plaintiff was required to pay ₹3,00,000 by April 2011, but instead remitted ₹2,95,000 only on 25 February 2012—well beyond the agreed time.

The defendant further contended that the balance amount of ₹6,00,000 was not paid within the stipulated period and was deposited in court only in 2016 during the pendency of the suit.

These circumstances, according to the defendant, clearly demonstrated that the plaintiff lacked readiness and willingness to perform the contract and was therefore not entitled to specific performance.

5. Respondent’s arguments
The plaintiff argued that he had always been ready and willing to perform the contract and had repeatedly requested the defendant to execute the sale deed.

He also contended that he had paid additional amounts to the defendant and remained in possession and enjoyment of the property since the date of the agreement.

The plaintiff relied on revenue records and agricultural documents to claim that he had been cultivating the land and therefore had a legitimate expectation that the agreement would be honoured.

6. Analysis of the law
The Court analysed the statutory requirement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

This provision requires a plaintiff seeking specific performance to both plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract.

The requirement is mandatory and applies regardless of whether the defendant specifically raises it as a defence. Courts must examine the conduct of the plaintiff throughout the transaction to determine whether the condition has been satisfied.

7. Precedent
[10/03, 07:54] Meta AI: Madras HC denied specific performance because buyer didn’t prove continuous readiness/willingness: missed timeline (₹3 L due Apr 2011, paid late Feb 2012; balance only in 2016). Trial court decree set aside; seller must refund ₹7 L advance with interest.