Readiness & Willingness Not Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Specific Performance Despite Admitted Agreement
Case Name: Tek Chand v. Krishan Kumar & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 09 April 2026
Citation: RSA No. 2788 of 2009
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta
Held: Even where execution of an agreement to sell and receipt of earnest money are admitted, specific performance cannot be granted unless the plaintiff proves continuous readiness and willingness, including presence on the due date and availability of funds.
Summary: The plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 08.01.2004, claiming that the defendants had agreed to sell a plot for ₹9,36,468 and had received ₹90,000 as earnest money.
The plaintiff asserted that he remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and had appeared before the authorities on the stipulated date for execution of the sale deed. However, the defendants allegedly failed to perform their obligations.
The defendants admitted execution of the agreement and receipt of earnest money but contended that the plaintiff failed to complete the transaction and did not prove readiness and willingness.
Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court declined specific performance and instead granted recovery of ₹1,08,900 with interest. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred the present Regular Second Appeal.
The High Court examined the record and found inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s conduct, including absence of proof of presence on the stipulated date, unexplained conduct of appearing prior to the agreed date, and delay in issuing legal notice.
The Court further noted that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate availability of the balance sale consideration, which is a mandatory requirement to establish readiness and willingness.
Decision: The High Court held that the plaintiff had failed to discharge the burden of proving readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, which is a sine qua non for grant of specific performance. The Court observed that mere admission of agreement and payment of earnest money does not entitle a plaintiff to the discretionary relief of specific performance. The absence of reliable evidence regarding presence on the due date, unexplained delay in issuing legal notice, and failure to prove financial capacity cumulatively disentitled the plaintiff from such relief. Accordingly, the Court found no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the Courts below and dismissed the appeal, upholding the decree for recovery in lieu of specific performance.