LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

B. Vijaya Bharathi v. P. Savitri & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2017 INSC 734Decided 10 Aug 2017
Civil Appeal No. 512 of 2009
Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman · Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Background

The plaintiff had entered into a registered agreement to sell with the first defendant in 1992, paying most of the price upfront with the balance due once certain society/regulatory clearances were obtained. When the first defendant backed out of signing a power of attorney needed for those clearances and walked away from the registering office, the plaintiff waited nearly two years before issuing a notice offering to pay the balance: by which time the property had already been sold twice over to other buyers. The plaintiff's suit for specific performance was decreed by the trial court but reversed by the High Court, which found the plaintiff had not remained "ready and willing" to perform her part of the bargain as the law requires.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, holding that no prudent, genuinely interested buyer would stay silent for nearly two years after an unequivocal repudiation of the agreement, and this delay and inaction showed the plaintiff was not continuously "ready and willing" to perform, as mandated by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The Court distinguished a precedent the plaintiff relied on (M.M.S. Investments) because that case involved a sale after a decree had already conveyed the property to the plaintiff, unlike here where the disputed resales happened before any suit was even filed, making the three-judge-bench ruling in Ram Awadh v. Achhaibar Dubey the applicable law instead, i.e., any defendant, including subsequent purchasers, can raise the readiness-and-willingness defence, not just the original seller. The Court also noted the plaintiff never sought cancellation of the two subsequent sale deeds, which independently barred specific performance since those sales would have to be set aside first. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision.

Lesson Learnt

Anyone seeking court-ordered performance of a sale agreement must show continuous readiness and willingness to pay and perform their side of the deal, sitting silent for years after the other side clearly backs out can itself defeat the claim, regardless of who the property was later sold to.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Property & Inheritance

Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

Sultan Singh (Dead) Thru. LRs v. The Financial Commissioner Govt. of NCT of Delhi

The Supreme Court held that whether a deceased female Bhumidhar's land passes to her own direct heirs or reverts to her late husband's male relatives depends on what her personal law said about her property rights on the date she died, not on the date she first acquired the land. Since the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force before Khajano's death in 1973, Section 14(1) of that Act had already converted her earlier limited life-interest into full, absolute ownership. Because she held the land absolutely at death, succession was governed by Section 53 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act (which favours her own direct descendants), not Section 50 (which would have sent it back to her first husband's male lineage). The Court dismissed the appeal by the Reversioners and upheld the High Court's ruling in favour of Khajano's sons.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Raghunath (Now Deceased, through LR) & Anr. vs. Bharat Bhushan (Deceased, through LRs) & Ors.

The High Court held that the Will's operative words "my above said property" clearly referred to the whole property, not just the shop, since the testator would have used a narrower phrase like "the said shop" if that was intended. The exclusionary phrase "to the exclusion of all other legal heirs" reinforced this reading, and the separate, differently-worded bequest of another flat (split by percentage shares) showed the testator knew how to limit a bequest when he wanted to. The appeal was dismissed and the trial court's decree upheld.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

JK Paper Ltd. v. Bipinchandra Natwarlal Shah & Ors.

This is not a final decision on the main case. The Supreme Court disposed of the cross-appeals while leaving valuation and disputed possession facts for the High Court to decide. It continued the stay for two months and required JK Paper to deposit an additional ₹15 crore with the High Court's Registrar General within that period, without prejudicing either side's arguments. A timely deposit would keep the stay in force until further High Court orders; failure would revoke it and allow the landowners to pursue enforcement. The Court rejected the company's argument that a known gorge and waterlogging reduced the usable area, and barred it from raising that issue before the High Court. It requested expedited disposal of the pending compensation appeals, taking account of delivery of the remaining land in November 2025.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Vijay Pal vs. Bharat Singh (Since Deceased, through LRs) & Ors.

The High Court held that even where no formal title document exists for land in an old village Abadi area, a claimant must still affirmatively prove continuous possession through credible evidence: mere oral assertions are not enough, especially when a court-appointed Local Commissioner's report found the land lying vacant with waste dumped on it. Since this was a concurrent factual finding by two lower courts with no substantial question of law in the appellant's favour, the Second Appeal was dismissed.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Smt. Swaraj Chopra vs. Smt. Shanti Devi (since deceased, through LRs) & Ors.

The Court held that even though the agreement fixed no exact deadline for performance, the law still expects enforcement within a "reasonable" period, and under Article 54 of the Limitation Act a suit must be filed within three years of being refused performance or gaining notice of an adverse claim. Since both the demand and the lawsuit came far beyond any reasonable or statutory limitation period, the suit, and this second appeal, were rightly dismissed as time-barred.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Ashok Kumar (since deceased, through LRs Pushpa & Ors.) vs. Nirmala Devi & Anr.

The appellants argued that the property had been divided through a family partition and that the concurrent findings on tenancy were wrong. The Court found that the partition defence was unsupported by documentary evidence and was inconsistent with the testimony of the defence witness. It held that Ashok Kumar was estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act from denying the landlord's title, and that the decree for possession rested on a proven tenancy and a valid sale deed. Since no substantial question of law arose, the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case