Supreme Court Clarifies: No Specific Performance Without Continuous Readiness & Willingness, Even If Suit Is Within Limitation

Introduction

In Mohammed Khaleel (D) Through Lrs & Ors. Vs Jayamma, the Supreme Court of India revisited core principles governing suits for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court dismissed the purchaser’s appeal and affirmed the High Court’s decision declining specific performance of an agreement to sell, despite the suit being filed within the prescribed limitation period.

The judgment underscores two decisive aspects:

  • The statutory requirement of continuous readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
  • The equitable nature of the relief of specific performance, including the impact of delay and conduct of the parties.

This decision is particularly significant for agreements involving immovable property and permissions under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULCRA).

Background of the Dispute

The Agreement to Sell

  • The original plaintiff, Mohammed Khaleel (now deceased, represented by his legal representatives), and the respondent Jayamma entered into an agreement to sell on 20.12.1990.
  • The agreement related to a vacant site measuring 100 feet x 78 feet.
  • Total sale consideration agreed: Rs. 3,00,000/-
    • Earnest money paid: Rs. 25,000/-
    • Balance consideration: Rs. 2,75,000/-
  • The parties agreed that the sale deed would be registered within four months, and the balance amount was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration.

Delivery of Title Documents and Possession

Under the agreement dated 20.12.1990, the respondent handed over to the plaintiff the original title-related papers, including:

  • Original will deed
  • Settlement deed
  • Katha extract issued by the Corporation
  • Endorsement relating to change of katha
  • Tax-paid receipts
  • Encumbrance certificate dated 06.08.1989
  • Application to the Revenue Officer dated 03.05.1982
  • Photocopy of sale deed dated 07.06.1961
  • Layout plan showing division of the property into eight shares

The plaintiff’s case was that he was also put into possession of the schedule property. The Trial Court accepted this version and held that possession had been delivered on 20.12.1990, though this was disputed by the respondent in her written statement.

Dispute Over Approach Road

The appellants asserted that the respondent had agreed that her siblings would execute an interim agreement to facilitate an approach road from T. Narasipura Main Road opposite to Milk Diary up to the boundary of the suit property. According to the appellants, this road work and proper measurement of the property were not completed.

The respondent, however, categorically pleaded that:

  • An existing approach road already provided access to the suit property.
  • There was no spare land available in or around the property to carve out any new road.

This disagreement about the approach road became one of the focal points in the correspondence and subsequent litigation.

Initial Notice by the Plaintiff – 15.04.1991

The plaintiff issued a notice dated 15.04.1991 calling upon the respondent to perform her part of the agreement.