A. Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed
Background
The appellant (seller) had agreed in 1989 to sell a portion of her Chennai property to the respondent (buyer) for about Rs. 3,43,200, and the respondent paid substantial advance amounts totalling more than half the price. A dispute arose over an additional area the appellant had orally agreed to sell, leading to an exchange of draft sale deeds; eventually the appellant refused to proceed and cancelled the agreement, after which the respondent sued for specific performance. Both the trial court and the Madras High Court ruled in the respondent's favour, holding she was ready and willing to perform her obligations while the appellant had wrongly backed out, and the appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court rejected all three of the appellant's arguments. First, it held the suit was maintainable even without a separate declaration that the cancellation notice was invalid, since that objection was never raised in the written statement or lower courts and the suit otherwise met the pleading requirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and Article 54 of the Limitation Act. Second, applying settled precedent (including Privy Council rulings) that a buyer need not physically produce cash to prove "readiness and willingness," it found the respondent had adequately shown both financial capacity (including a sanctioned LIC loan) and genuine intent to complete the purchase, having already paid over half the price. Third, it rejected the "unclean hands" argument, noting it was the appellant who had accepted substantial money and then avoided execution of the sale deed. Finding the concurrent findings of both lower courts sound and free of perversity, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs. 10,000.
Lesson Learnt
In a suit for specific performance of a property sale agreement, a buyer does not need to show ready cash in hand to prove "readiness and willingness" to perform: demonstrated financial capacity (such as a sanctioned loan) and consistent conduct are enough; and procedural objections like "maintainability of suit" must be raised at the earliest stage (in the written statement) or they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.