Proof Of Agreement Alone Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Specific Performance - Continuous Readiness And Willingness Is A Condition Precedent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In a significant ruling reiterating the mandatory requirement of continuous readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that even when execution of an agreement to sell, payment of full consideration, and delivery of possession are proved, the court may still refuse a decree of specific performance if the plaintiff fails to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal upheld the trial court’s refusal to grant specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land, holding that specific performance is an equitable and discretionary remedy which cannot be granted merely because a valid contract is proved.

The Court emphasized that:

“The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance.”

Background Of The Case

The dispute arose from an agreement to sell dated 24 March 2007 relating to agricultural land measuring 2.30 hectares situated in Village Pahanda, Tahsil Berla, District Durg.

According to the plaintiff, Defendant No.1 agreed to sell the land for ₹2,50,000, and the entire sale consideration was paid in cash on the same day in the presence of witnesses. The plaintiff further claimed that possession of the suit land along with the original Rin-Pustika was handed over to him, and the agreement allowed him to get the sale deed registered at his convenience.

The plaintiff alleged that despite repeated requests, the defendant avoided execution of the sale deed. Legal notices dated 22 May 2009 and 25 August 2009 were issued calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed, but the notices were refused. Subsequently, the plaintiff deposited ₹49,450 as stamp duty determined by the Collector of Stamps and filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement and permanent injunction.

During the trial, the court recorded findings in favour of the plaintiff regarding execution of the agreement, payment of consideration, and delivery of possession, yet dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, the plaintiff filed a first appeal under Section 96 CPC, while the defendant filed a cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC challenging the finding regarding delivery of possession.

“Readiness” And “Willingness” Are Distinct Legal Requirements

The High Court explained that Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act requires the plaintiff to both plead and prove readiness and willingness throughout the subsistence of the contract.

Referring to several Supreme Court judgments including N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, the Court observed that readiness and willingness must be examined from the conduct of the plaintiff before and after the institution of the suit.

The Court clarified the distinction between the two expressions in the following terms:

“Readiness relates to the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract, which includes his financial ability, whereas willingness relates to the conduct of the plaintiff demonstrating his intention to perform the contract.”

The Court further emphasized that mere assertions in pleadings are not sufficient and the plaintiff must demonstrate through evidence that he remained prepared to perform the contractual obligations from the date of agreement until the decree.

“Mere Issuance Of Notices And Payment Of Stamp Duty Does Not Establish Readiness”

The plaintiff argued that he had demonstrated readiness and willingness by issuing legal notices, initiating proceedings for adjudication of stamp duty, and depositing the determined amount.

However, the Court held that such acts do not by themselves establish practical preparedness to complete the transaction.

The Court observed that the plaintiff failed to show that he had made arrangements for execution and registration of the sale deed or that he was ready to bear the expenses associated with the registration process.

The judgment records:

“The mere statement of readiness without evidencing practical or financial preparedness is insufficient, particularly when the transaction involves immovable property where substantial costs may be incurred during registration.”

Thus, the Court concluded that the essential requirement of continuous readiness and willingness remained unproven, justifying the refusal of specific performance.

“Agreement Reciting Possession And Consideration Cannot Transfer Title Without Registration”

The High Court also examined the legal effect of the unregistered agreement to sell which recited payment of full consideration and delivery of possession.

The Court held that such an instrument cannot transfer ownership of immovable property unless executed through a registered deed of conveyance.

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated:

“Immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred only by a registered deed of conveyance.”

The Court further held that under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered document affecting immovable property cannot confer title nor be received as evidence of transfer except for collateral purposes.

“Party Withholding Himself From Witness Box Invites Adverse Inference”

Although the defendant denied execution of the agreement and delivery of possession in his written statement, he did not enter the witness box to depose in support of his defence.

Applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, the High Court held:

“Where a party does not enter the witness box to deny allegations on oath, an adverse inference can be drawn that the defence set up by him is not correct.”

Accordingly, the Court upheld the trial court’s finding that possession of the suit land had been delivered to the plaintiff, and dismissed the defendant’s cross-objection challenging that finding.

The Chhattisgarh High Court ultimately held that specific performance being an equitable and discretionary remedy cannot be granted merely because the agreement and payment of consideration are proved.

The Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.

Accordingly, the first appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and the judgment of the trial court refusing specific performance was upheld, while the cross-objection filed by the defendant was also dismissed.

Date of Decision: 03 March 2026