Readiness and Willingness Must Be Found, Not Presumed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Remands Specific Performance Suit

“It is not open to the First Appellate Court to uphold a decree for specific performance without deciding whether the plaintiff was continuously ready and willing to perform her part of the contract”—Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeevan

The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the First Appellate Court's decree, highlighting its failure to record a mandatory finding on plaintiffs’ readiness and willingness, a sine qua non under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeevan strongly emphasized that a court “may not grant specific performance to a plaintiff who has failed to aver and prove that she has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.” The Court held that the First Appellate Court erred gravely in ignoring this foundational requirement.

“Subsequent Purchasers Can Challenge Plaintiff’s Readiness and Willingness”: High Court Applies Supreme Court’s Kadupugotla Varalakshmi Doctrine

The High Court unequivocally rejected the First Appellate Court’s approach of treating the presence of subsequent purchasers as the only issue worth adjudicating. Referring to Supreme Court precedent in Kadupugotla Varalakshmi v. Vudagiri Venkata Rao (2021 SCC OnLine SC 365), the Court reiterated that even a subsequent purchaser is entitled to raise the plea that the plaintiff did not fulfill the requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.

Quoting the Supreme Court, the High Court stated: “A court may not, therefore, grant to a plaintiff who has failed to aver and to prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement the specific performance whereof he seeks. There is, therefore, no question of the plea being available to one defendant and not to another.”

Agreement, Breach, and Sale to Relatives

The litigation stemmed from an Agreement to Sell dated 09.01.2007 executed by Krishana Devi in favour of Pushpa Devi and Bala Devi, for a parcel of agricultural land measuring 6 Kanals and 18 Marlas for ₹4,48,500. The Sale Deed was scheduled for 14.05.2007, and the plaintiffs claimed to have appeared at the Sub-Registrar’s office with the balance sum of ₹3,58,500, but Krishana Devi did not turn up.

Despite subsequent legal notices, no execution took place. Instead, on 30.07.2007, Krishana Devi executed a Registered Sale Deed in favour of her nephews, Om Pal and Vimal Kumar.

The Trial Court decreed the suit, rejecting the claim of the nephews that they were bona fide purchasers without notice. The First Appellate Court upheld the decree, focusing only on the fact that the subsequent purchasers were close relatives and presumably had notice.

THE FATAL OMISSION: No Finding on Core Issue

The High Court found that the First Appellate Court failed to examine Issue No.1, which directly concerned whether the plaintiffs were “ready and willing” to perform their part of the contract. The High Court noted:

“Upholding the decree of specific performance merely on the ground of there being a subsequent purchaser is erroneous… The First Appellate Court has not recorded any findings on the plaintiffs’ readiness and willingness.”

The Court declared that this lapse goes to the root of the case. It relied on the principle that “a plaintiff must demonstrate, from the date of agreement till decree, that they were consistently ready and willing to perform the contract.” Failure to do so renders the relief of specific performance legally untenable.

REMAND FOR FRESH DETERMINATION

Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeevan held: “In view of the ratio in Kadupugotla Varalakshmi (supra), the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 passed by the First Appellate Court is liable to be set aside.”

The High Court remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court with the following direction:

“The First Appellate Court shall determine the issue of readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to perform their part of the contract, on the basis of evidence already on record.”

It further directed that this be concluded within six months from the date of receipt of the order.

Law Must Be Applied, Not Assumed

This ruling is a stern reminder that the statutory requirement of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) is non-negotiable in suits for specific performance. Even when there is a subsequent sale, especially to relatives or insiders, courts must not presume compliance by the plaintiff.

The High Court’s remand order reinforces judicial accountability, stating that legal conclusions cannot be reached in vacuum or by inference, but must be rooted in recorded findings and tested evidence.

Date of Decision: 18th September 2025