Specific Performance Not a Right, But an Equity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Relief to Purchaser Silent for 3 Years

“The plaintiff sat silent for nearly three years—mere execution of a registered agreement does not entitle one to equitable relief under Section 16(c),” In a critical verdict reinforcing judicial caution in granting specific performance, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal seeking enforcement of a registered sale agreement, citing the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness, and the superior equitable rights of bona fide purchasers.

Delivering judgment in G. Appaji Rao v. D. Sathemma (Deceased) & Others, Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao upheld the trial court's refusal to enforce a sale agreement dated 16.10.1992, despite acknowledging its validity. The Court found that the prior agreement dated 10.12.1990 in favour of another purchaser (Defendant No.6) prevailed, and that purchasers under subsequent registered sale deeds were protected under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

“Readiness and Willingness Must Be Continuous—Delayed Legal Notice Destroys Equity”

The High Court took strong exception to the plaintiff’s failure to act within the stipulated time for completion of the sale. Though the agreement under Ex.A-2 required balance consideration to be paid within three months, the plaintiff waited two years and eleven months before issuing a legal notice.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s binding judgment in U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 (4) ALT (SC) 77, the Court reiterated:

“To aver and prove readiness and willingness... the plaintiff would have to plead that he had sufficient funds or was in a position to raise funds in time. Mere assertions are not enough—evidence must demonstrate continuous readiness.”

Justice Rao held that failure to tender payment or issue a timely legal notice was fatal:

“Admittedly, the plaintiff did not issue any legal notice within three months as agreed. Ex.A-3 notice was served only after a delay of nearly three years. This delay is unexplained, and contrary to the spirit of Section 16(c).”

"Earlier Agreement Ex.B-7 Prevails Over Plaintiff’s Later Registered Agreement"

Though the Court found the Ex.A-2 agreement valid and supported by credible witnesses, it refused enforcement due to the prior Ex.B-7 sale agreement executed by the vendor on 10.12.1990, and partly acted upon through subsequent registered sale deeds dated 29.04.1993.

The Court found that the plaintiff was aware of this earlier transaction, as evidenced in his own admissions:

“The plaintiff had knowledge of the earlier agreement dated 10.12.1990 before entering into Ex.A-2. When Ex.B-7 was already in existence and partly performed, the later agreement is subject to those prior equitable rights.”

Ex.B-7, found to be valid and supported by independent witnesses including the vendor’s daughters, was the foundation for the registered sale deeds in favour of defendants 2 to 6.

“Bona Fide Purchasers Without Notice Cannot Be Divested of Title”

The High Court gave full effect to Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, which shields subsequent bona fide purchasers for value who acquired property without notice of a prior agreement.

“Defendants 2 to 6 obtained registered sale deeds in 1993 pursuant to Ex.B-7. The plaintiff made no challenge to these deeds, nor did he seek cancellation. No relief can be granted against them.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Alagammal v. Ganesan, (2024) 3 SCC 232, the Court emphasized that specific performance cannot be enforced against subsequent purchasers in the absence of a challenge to their title.

“Once a registered sale deed has been executed pursuant to an earlier agreement and the purchaser is bona fide, the plaintiff’s later rights, if any, must yield to superior equities.”

"Equity Can’t Support Suppression or Inaction": Appellant’s Conduct Fatal to Relief

The Court found that the plaintiff not only delayed action, but also suppressed material facts. Despite knowing of the prior agreement and subsequent sale deeds, he did not challenge the Ex.B-7 agreement or the sale deeds in Ex.B-2 to B-6.

Justice Rao noted:

“Even assuming Ex.A-2 is valid, the plaintiff remained silent despite being aware of prior transfers. Such conduct disentitles him to discretionary relief.”

The decision draws strength from Satya Jain v. Anis Ahmed Rushdie, (2013) 8 SCC 131, which held:

“Relief of specific performance is discretionary, and must be refused where plaintiff has not acted fairly and diligently. Delay, suppression, and inequitable conduct are sufficient to deny relief.”

Refund of Advance Allowed as Equitable Relief

While denying specific performance, the High Court partly allowed the appeal by ordering refund of the advance amount of ₹1,00,000 paid under Ex.A-2. Interest was granted at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization.

The refund is to be paid by the legal heirs of the deceased vendor (Defendant No.1), namely Respondents 7 to 11, from her estate, as per the settled principle that equity must compensate even where specific enforcement fails.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling is a comprehensive restatement of settled principles in specific performance jurisprudence, especially:

• Delay and inaction defeat specific performance;

• Section 16(c) requires not only pleading but proof of readiness and willingness;

• Earlier agreements with partial performance take precedence over subsequent registered agreements;

• Bona fide purchasers are protected under Section 19(b) even without knowledge of rival agreements;

• Equity demands fairness—suppression and silence erode judicial sympathy.

Date of Decision: 21st November 2025