Shenbagam & Ors. vs KK Rathinavel
Background
In 1990, the appellants (sellers) agreed to sell about 12.6 acres of land in Coimbatore to the respondent (buyer) for Rs. 1,25,000, of which Rs. 35,000 was paid as advance; the balance was to be paid within six months, after which the sellers were to execute a sale deed free of an existing Rs. 6,000 mortgage on the property. The buyer never paid the balance within that period; the sellers eventually cleared the mortgage themselves in 1992, and the buyer filed a suit for specific performance only in 1993: three years after the contractual deadline. Courts at three levels (trial court, first appellate court, and the Madras High Court) all ruled in the buyer's favour, ordering the sale to proceed.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that all three lower courts had approached the case incorrectly by never properly examining whether the buyer had actually proven he was continuously "ready and willing" to perform his side of the contract: a mandatory precondition under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, with the burden of proof resting on the buyer, not the seller. Reviewing the buyer's conduct: no communication demanding performance for years, a three-year delay before even filing suit, bank passbooks only from years after the deadline, and eventual withdrawal of the deposited balance amount in 2001. The Court found this was inconsistent conduct that fell short of the "readiness and willingness" required. Given the three decades that had passed and the buyer's blemished conduct, the Court declined to order specific performance (i.e., it did not force the sale to go through), and instead directed the sellers to refund the Rs. 35,000 advance with 6% annual interest from the date the buyer had filed his suit.
Lesson Learnt
In a suit demanding that a property sale agreement be enforced, a buyer cannot simply wait passively and later claim he was always willing to complete the purchase. The law requires continuous, demonstrated readiness and willingness (including financial capacity) from the date of the contract onward, and courts must specifically test for this before ordering specific performance, especially after long delays.