Holding

The plaintiff failed to establish readiness and willingness under Section 16(c), so the decree for specific performance was rightly set aside.

Summary

The appellant, C. Haridasan, entered into an agreement to sell Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights in 2005, paid a nominal advance and was to pay the balance within six months after the defendants provided title documents. The defendants failed to provide the documents, the plaintiff delayed serving a legal notice until November 2006, and only paid about 4% of the consideration. The trial court decreed specific performance and enhanced the sale price by 25%. The High Court set aside that decree, invoking Section 20 of the pre‑2018 Specific Relief Act. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) and whether the trial court’s discretion was proper. It found the plaintiff had not complied with Section 16(c), that time was of essence, and that the High Court’s interference was justified. Consequently, the decree for specific performance was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the plaintiff satisfied the statutory requirement of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Whether the trial court’s enhancement of the sale consideration and decree of specific performance was a proper exercise of discretion under the pre‑amendment Section 20.
Whether the six‑month period stipulated in the agreement was the essence of the contract, and the plaintiff’s delay defeats specific performance.
Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the trial court’s decree.
Applicability of the pre‑2018 Section 20 to transactions entered into before the 2018 amendment.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 142
Specific Relief Act, 1963s. 10, s. 16(c), s. 20
Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018

Subjects

specific performanceSpecific Relief Actreadiness and willingnessdiscretionary reliefSection 20Section 16(c)time of essenceequitable remedysale of land

Judgment

244 [2023]
SUPREME COURT 3 S.C.R. 244
REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A C. HARIDASAN
v.
ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA KURUP & OTHERS
(Civil appeal no. 4072 of 2022)
B JANUARY 13, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 : ss. 10, 16(c), 20 – Discretion as to
decreeing specific performance – On facts execution of the
agreement to sell land between the parties and receipt of
C
consideration by the appellant-buyer – Balance amount to be paid
within six months provided the respondent-seller made available
the document of title and purchase certificate after measuring the
property – Thereafter notice served by the appellant to the
respondent to execute the sale deed – Refusal of the respondent to
D execute the sale deed and cancelled the agreement – Suit for specific
performance of the agreement to sell by the appellant – Trial court
allowed the suit and also directed the appellant to pay 25% more
amount, over and above the agreed consideration – High Court
while considering s. 20, set aside the decree for specific performance
and directed the respondent to pay the consideration amount to the
E
appellant – On appeal held: In view of difference of opinion, matter
referred to the larger bench – Reference to larger Bench.
Referring *the matter to larger Bench, the Court
HELD :
F PER M. R. SHAH, J.
1.1. It was never the case on behalf of the defendants in
the written statement and/or even before the trial court that the
agreement to sell was inequitable and/or was a forced agreement
to sell. Even the trial court also did not frame the issue, “whether
G agreement to sell was a forced agreement to sell/contract or not”.

Ed. Note : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna
pronounced separate reportable judgments of the Bench comprising Their Lordships.
In view of difference of opinion in the matter it was directed to place the papers before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders for constituting a larger Bench
H to decide the controversy.

244
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 245
KURUP

On appreciation of entire evidence on record, the trial court after A
recording the findings on the execution of the agreement to sell
by the defendants and receipt of part sale consideration and that
the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of
the contract, decreed the suit for specific performance. The High
Court, as such, has not commented upon and/or set aside any of
B
the findings recorded by the trial court, recorded while passing a
decree for specific performance. Straightway, the High Court
considered Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and observed
and held that by enhancing the amount of sale consideration, the
trial court has wrongly exercised the discretion in favour of the
plaintiff. The High Court commented upon the order passed by C
the trial court enhancing the amount of sale consideration and
directing the plaintiff to pay more amount than the sale
consideration mentioned in the agreement to sell. [Para 6][257-
A-E]
1.2 The trial court directed the plaintiff to pay some more D
amount than the amount mentioned in the agreement to sell, at
the most, the plaintiff can be said to be aggrieved. Still, the High
Court considered such an order passed by the trial court against
the defendants. As such, the trial court was absolutely justified in
compensating the defendants by paying some more amount while
passing a decree for specific performance. Therefore, in the facts E
and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the
trial court exercised the discretion in favour of the plaintiff after
having observed and recorded the findings on the execution of
the agreement to sell by the defendants and that the part sale
consideration was paid by the plaintiff which was accepted by the F
defendants and thereafter the finding that the plaintiff was always
ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the trial
court was absolutely justified in passing the decree for specific
performance. The High Court has erred in interfering with the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court, without setting
aside the findings recorded by the trial court recorded while G
passing the decree for specific performance. The impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable,
both, on law as well as on facts, and is quashed and set aside and
the judgment and decree passed by the trial court for specific
performance of agreement to sell is restored. However, to do H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A complete justice and in exercise of powers under Article 142 of
the Constitution of India, it is directed that over and above the
sale consideration mentioned in the agreement to sell and the
amount already deposited by the plaintiff, the plaintiff to pay a
further sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the
original defendants, to be paid within the stipulated period. The
B
amount which might have been deposited by the original
defendants, deposited pursuant to the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court, i.e., Rs. 3,10,000/- be also
returned/paid to the original defendants. [Para 7, 8][257-F-H; 258-
A-E]
C Pratap Lakshman Muchandi v. Shamlal Uddavadas
Wadhwa, (2008) 12 SCC 67 : [2008] 1 SCR 854 – relied
on.
PER B. V. NAGARATHNA, J. (Dissenting) :
1.1 The High Court relied on Section 20 of the Specific
D
Relief Act, prior to the same being substituted by way of Act No.
18 of 2018, to deny the relief of specific performance to the
plaintiff. Section 20 of the Act as it stood prior to the Amendment
Act of 2018 provided that the jurisdiction to decree specific
performance is discretionary. It said that the Court is not bound
E to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. Such a
discretion, however, was not to be exercised arbitrarily, but ought
to have been based on sound and reasonable judicial principles.
Even in the absence of discretionary power under Section 20 to
deny the relief of specific performance, the plaintiff was not entitled
to claim such relief as a matter of right. The position of law, even
F following the amendment of 2018 remains that the provisions of
Section 16 of the Act have to be mandatorily complied with by
the party seeking the relief of specific performance. The relief of
specific performance cannot be granted in favour of a party who
has not performed his obligations under the contract. It is
therefore necessary to ascertain whether, the plaintiff had
G complied with the statutory prerequisites under Section 16 (c),
before claiming the relief of specific performance. [Para
12,18][268-B-C; 270-H; 271-A-B]
1.2 Clause (c) of Section 16 of the Act, which is relevant in
the instant case, though amended w.e.f. 01st October, 2018 clearly
H states that unless the plaintiff establishes his readiness and
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 247
KURUP

willingness to perform his part of the contract, he would not be A
entitled to a decree of specific performance. Prior to the
amendment, the expression “who fails to aver and prove” was
on the statute book and its substitution by the words “who fails
to prove” does not bring about any drastic change to the object
and intent of the clause. This is because failing to prove readiness
B
and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract
would first require averments to that effect to be made in the
plaint by the plaintiff. The absence of such averments regarding
readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the
contract by the plaintiff would not permit him to let in any evidence
on that aspect. It is a settled principle of law that no evidence can C
be permitted to be let in in the absence of averments in the plaint
/ pleadings. [Para 19][271-G-H; 272-A-C]
1.3 Notwithstanding the amendment to Section 16 of the
Act whereby the expression “who fails to aver and prove” has
been substituted with the phrase “who fails to prove,” the law D
remains that no evidence can be let in on a plea that was never
put forward in the plaint/pleadings. But, it is necessary to sound
a caveat. Even the absence of the words “ready and willing to
perform the contract” in the plaint would now not have an adverse
impact on the plaintiff’s case, so long as plaintiff’s readiness and
willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract could E
be gathered on a holistic reading of the plaint. In fact, even in
relation to the earlier scheme of Section 16 of the Act which
required a plaintiff seeking the remedy of specific performance
to ‘aver and prove’ that he was ready and willing to perform his
obligations under an agreement, it was sufficient if the averments F
in substance indicate continuous readiness and willingness on
the part of the person suing, to perform his part of the contract
language in Section 16 (c), as it stood prior to the Amendment
Act of 2018, did not require any specific phraseology to be followed
in relation to the averments as to readiness and willingness. That
the compliance of requirements of readiness and willingness have G
to be in spirt and substance and not in letter and form. That is
why the deletion of the words “who fails to aver” in Section 16
(c) of the Act does bring about any real change in the position of
law as it stood prior to the amendment. [Para 20, 21][272-E-H;
273-A-B] H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A 1.4 Readiness and willingness cannot be considered in a
straitjacket formula; it has to be inferred on a consideration of
the entire facts and circumstances of each case and the intention
and conduct of the parties concerned. Even if a party to the
contract is ready and has the requisite funds he may not be willing
to perform his part of the contract and vice versa. Thus, both
B
readiness as well as willingness have to be established by the
plaintiff on whom the burden is cast in a suit for specific
performance of an agreement. [Para 22, 23][273-C-D; 274-B]
1.5 Nothing was brought on record by the plaintiff to
demonstrate that positive steps were taken by him in pursuance
C of the agreement of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights. It is
trite that the relief of specific performance cannot be granted in
favour of a party who has not performed his obligations under the
contract. The only exception to such rule is that a party is not
required to perform those obligations, as are prevented or waived
D by the other party to the contract. [Para 26][275-G-H]
1.6 It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff had paid an amount,
which constituted merely 4% of the consideration. The trial court
itself recorded findings to the effect that neither party had initiated
timely steps to perform their respective obligations under the
E contract. Although the defendants did not make available the title
deeds of the schedule property to the plaintiff, it could not be
said that the conduct of the defendants had prevented the plaintiff
from tendering the balance sale consideration, within the
stipulated date, or at any time before filing the suit for specific
performance as the whole object of the intended sale was to garner
F funds for discharging a debt which was ultimately done by the
defendants by selling family jewellery. Further, there was no delay
on the part of the defendant in acting in pursuance of the
agreement. The fact that the purchase certificate was granted by
the concerned authority only on 31st May, 2007, was beyond the
G control of the defendants and such delay could not be attributed
to the defendants. The defendants had duly initiated the process
of obtaining a purchase certificate soon after entering into the
agreement. [Para 27, 28][276-A-E]
1.7 While the counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has
H contended that since the transaction in question involved the
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 249
KURUP

transfer of rights in immovable property, a prudent purchaser A
would have to satisfy himself as to the genuineness and validity
of the documents of title, and therefore, owing to the
nonavailability of documents of title, the plaintiff was unable to
proceed with his obligations, no explanation has been provided
as to why ancillary steps such as measurement of the property
B
was not proceeded with. Delay in securing relevant documents
from the concerned authorities could not absolve the plaintiff of
his obligations under the agreement of sale of Kanam and
Kuzhikoor rights. Further, this aspect of the matter is to be
appreciated in light of the fact that there is nothing on record
which would demonstrate any step taken by the plaintiff to pursue C
the agreement, until, 2 nd November, 2006, on which date, the
legal notice was served on the defendants calling upon them to
execute the sale deed in respect of the Kanam and Kuzhikoor
rights over the suit property. No explanation has been provided
as to why the legal notice was not served earlier, particularly
D
when the six–month period stipulated under the agreement had
expired on 7th February, 2006. Such conduct of the plaintiff is
certainly not reflective of willingness, in terms of Section 16(c) of
the Act. Further, the Court has to be mindful of circumstances
which compelled the defendants to enter into the agreement of
sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights dated 7th February, 2006. E
The time limit stipulated in the agreement is of significance in
the instant case when this aspect is viewed in light of the fact that
the defendants were debt-ridden and sought to sell their Kanam
and Kuzhikoor rights over suit property with the sole intention of
clearing off such debts which were incurred to support the cardiac
F
treatment of defendant no. 1. It was therefore necessary that the
plaintiff paid a significant portion of the consideration, if not the
entire sale consideration, within the period of six months as
stipulated in the agreement. But the plaintiff refused to do so
even on being repeatedly requested by the defendants. [Para 29,
30][276-E-H; 277-A-C] G
1.8 The period of six months which was stipulated in the
agreement of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights, in the present
case, has to be accorded its due significance while deciding the
suit for specific performance. Having regard to the urgency of
the financial need of the defendants, which need had prompted H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A them to sell their Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights over the suit
property, it must be held that time stipulated in the agreement
was the essence of the contract. The plaintiff in the present case
served a legal notice only on 02nd November, 2006 while the six
month period stipulated in the agreement had elapsed on 07th
February, 2006. There is no explanation as to what occasioned
B
the delay in serving the legal notice on the defendants and why
such steps were not adopted soon after the expiry of the six month
period stipulated in the agreement of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor
rights. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff, having paid no more
than 4% of the sale consideration, and having not done even as
C much as getting the property measured within the period of six
months stipulated under the agreement, cannot, at a belated date,
claim specific performance of the agreement dated 7th August,
2005 to the disadvantage and hardship of the defendants. [Para
32-34][279-B-F]
D 1.9 The Courts may grant additional amount of
consideration, a relief to balance equities, such a decree would
be warranted only in cases where the plaintiff satisfactorily
establishes compliance with Section 16 of the Act. That the
measure of enhancement of compensation may be awarded at the
discretion of the Court only if insufficiency of compensation is
E the only impediment to ensuring equity and preventing undue
gain to one party. In the absence of compliance with the
elementary requirements of Section 16 of the Act, enhancement
of compensation cannot be employed as a device to allow specific
performance in cases where the plaintiff has not performed his
F obligations under the contract as in the instant case. [Para 35][280-
A-C]
1.10 The appeal fails on the sole ground that the conduct of
the plaintiff was not reflective of his readiness as well as
willingness on his part to pursue the agreement of sale of Kanam
and Kuzhikoor rights, in terms of Section 16(c) of the Act. [Para
G 36][280-C-D]
1.11 The impugned judgment of the High Court whereby
the High Court set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the
trial court, (by which the suit for specific performance of an
agreement of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights, filed by the
H plaintiff was decreed), is affirmed. [Para 38][280-H; 281-A]
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 251
KURUP

Pratap Lakshman Muchandi and Ors. vs. Shamlal A
Uddavadas Wadhwa and Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 67;
Shenbagam vs. K.K. Rathinavel, 2022 SCC OnLine SC
71; Mehboob-Ur-Rehman (Dead) through LRs vs.
Ahsanul Ghani (2019) 19 SCC 415; Sughar Singh vs.
Hari Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors., A.I.R. 2021
B
SC 5581; B. Santoshamma vs. D. Sarala and Anr.,
(2020) 19 SCC 80; Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal
and Ors., (2008) 17 SCC 491; Motilal Jain vs. Ramdasi
Devi, A.I.R. 2000 SC 2408 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 615;
Syed Dastagir vs. T.R. Gopalakrishna Shetty, (1999) 6
SCC 337 : [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 351; His Holiness C
Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji vs. Sita Ram Thapar,
(1996) 4 SCC 526 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 111; J.P.
Builders vs. A. Ramdas Rao, (2011) 1 SCC 429 : [2010]
15 SCR 538; Saradamani Kandappan vs. S.
Rajalakshmi, (2011) 12 SCC 18 : [2011] 8 SCR 874;
D
K.S. Vidyanadam vs. Vairavan (1997) 3 SCC 1 : [1997]
1 SCR 993 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
In the Judgment of M. R. SHAH, J.
[2008] 1 SCR 854 relied on Para 7
E
In the Judgment of B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.
(2008) 1 SCC 67 referred to Para 9.4, 35
(2019) 19 SCC 415 referred to Para 15
A.I.R. 2021 SC 5581 referred to Para 16
(2020) 19 SCC 80 referred to Para 17 F
(2008) 17 SCC 491 referred to Para 19
[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 615 referred to Para 21
[1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 351 referred to Para 21
[1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 111 referred to Para 23
G
[2010] 15 SCR 538 referred to Para 24
[2011] 8 SCR 874 referred to Para 31
[1997] 1 SCR 993 referred to Para 32

H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4072
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2021 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in RFA No.63 of 2009.
M. K. S. Menon, Ms. Usha Nandini V., Biju P. Raman, M. S.
B Vishnu Sankar, Ravi, Advs. for the Appellant.
Raghenth Basant, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Ms. Roopali Lakhotia,
Shankar Narayanan, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by
C M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 03.11.2021 passed by the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in Regular First Appeal No. 63 of 2009, by which the High
Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the original defendants
D and has set aside the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2008 passed by
the learned trial Court in Original Suit No. 205/2006, decreeing the suit
for specific performance, the original plaintiff has preferred the present
appeal.
2. That the plaintiff and the defendants entered into an agreement
E to sell dated 07.08.2005 under which the defendants agreed to sell the
land in question for a consideration of Rs. 8,750/- per cent. The plaintiff
paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as advance towards the part sale
consideration amount. The balance consideration was agreed to be paid
by the plaintiff within six months from the date after measuring the
property provided the defendants make available the documents of title
F
including the purchase certificate under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
2.1 That thereafter, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated
02.11.2006 upon the defendants to execute the sale deed to which the
defendants sent reply and refused to execute the sale deed and cancelled
the agreement to sell. Therefore, the appellant herein – original plaintiff
G instituted a Suit being Original Suit No. 205/2006 before the learned trial
Court for specific performance of agreement to sell and in the alternative
return of the plaintiff’s amount with interest.
2.2 The said suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written
statement. It was denied that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to
H
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 253
KURUP [M. R. SHAH, J.]

perform his part of the contract. It was also submitted that the suit was A
filed after one year from the date of expiry of the agreement. It was the
case on behalf of the defendants that defendant No.1 was a heart patient
and he had undergone the surgery on which huge amount was spent
which was borrowed from others and therefore to clear off the said
liability, the defendants agreed to sell the property in question. It was
B
also the case of the defendants that even though the defendants had
approached the plaintiff to pay some more money, he was not prepared
for the same, thereby defendants had been compelled to sell the gold
ornaments and clear the liabilities. It was submitted that the defendants
were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement.
2.3 The learned trial Court framed the following issues: C

“1. Whether plaintiff had performed his part of the contract, thereby
entitling him for specific performance of the agreement?
2. Whether plaintiff has got any cause of action against defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought? D
4. Relief and costs?”
2.4 On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned
trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance of agreement to
sell dated 07.08.2005. However, at the same time and to do complete
E
justice between the parties, the learned trial Court directed the plaintiff
to pay 25% more amount, over and above the agreed consideration i.e.,
sale consideration at the rate of Rs. 11,000/- per cent (Rs. 8750/- per
cent + 25% = 10,037/-, rounded off to Rs. 11,000/-). The learned trial
Court also directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration,
i.e., Rs. 3,97,000/-, within a period of two months. F
2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree
passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit for specific
performance of agreement to sell dated 7.8.2005, the defendants
preferred an appeal before the High Court. Without upsetting the findings
recorded by the learned trial Court on execution of agreement to sell G
dated 7.8.2005; payment of part sale consideration and the other issues
held in favour of the plaintiff, straightway the High Court considered
Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and opined that the trial Court was
not justified in enhancing the sale consideration and ought not to have
exercised the discretion in favour of the plaintiff. By the impugned
H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A judgment and order, the High Court, while relying upon and/or considering
Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, has partly allowed the appeal and
has set aside the judgment and decree for specific performance and has
directed the defendants to pay Rs. 3,10,000/- to the plaintiff.
2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
B and order passed by the High Court, setting aside the judgment and
decree passed by the learned trial Court for specific performance of
agreement to sell, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
3. It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant that in the facts and circumstances of the case,
C the High Court has committed an error in reversing the decree of specific
performance.
3.1 It is submitted that the execution of the agreement to sell and
receipt of part sale consideration have not been disputed by the
defendants.
D 3.2 It is submitted that as per the conditions mentioned in the
agreement to sell, the balance sale consideration was required to be paid
within a period of six months from the date after measuring the property
provided the defendants make available the documents of title including
the purchase certificate under Kerala Land Reforms Act, which was
E yet to be obtained.
3.3 It is submitted that even the purchase certificate was issued
by the Government during the pendency of the suit. It is submitted that
therefore once the execution of agreement to sell is admitted and the
part sale consideration is received and it was found that the plaintiff was
F always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the learned
trial Court was justified in decreeing the suit for specific performance.
3.4 It is then submitted that even, though not required, the learned
trial Court enhanced the sale consideration to do complete justice, which
the plaintiff agreed. It is submitted that enhancement of the sale
consideration by the learned trial Court could not have been gone against
G
the plaintiff.
3.5 It is further submitted that even otherwise when while
exercising the discretion in favour of the plaintiff to pass a decree for
specific performance, the learned trial Court enhanced the amount of
sale consideration and directed the plaintiff to pay some more amount
H
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 255
KURUP [M. R. SHAH, J.]

than the sale consideration mentioned in the agreement to sell, the same A
was not required to be interfered with by the High Court.
3.6 It is submitted that as such the High Court has straightway
gone and considered Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, without
adverting to the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on execution
of the agreement to sell; payment of part sale consideration and that the B
plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
3.7 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present
appeal.
4. The present appeal is opposed by Shri Raghenth Basant, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the original defendants. C

4.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the original defendants that as such the agreement to sell
was a forced agreement to sell as at the relevant time, defendant no.1
suffered a heart attack and he was in need of money and therefore he
was compelled to sell the property in question. It is therefore submitted D
and as rightly observed by the High Court, the learned trial Court ought
not to have exercised the discretion in favour of the plaintiff, rather
ought to have exercised the discretion in favour of the defendants on the
ground of equity.
4.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original defendants E
has submitted that at the time of execution of agreement to sell, the
plaintiff paid a meagre amount of Rs. 10,000/- only as advance towards
the consideration amount. It is submitted that as the defendants were
hard pressed and were in need of immediate money as defendant no.1
suffered a heart attack, it was agreed that the balance consideration to F
be paid within six months from the date of agreement to sell. It is
submitted that thereafter as the plaintiff did not pay the balance sale
consideration within six months, the defendants cleared their liabilities
by selling gold ornaments of their family members and therefore thereafter
the defendants were not in need of money and therefore there was no
cause and/or reason to sell the property in question and thereafter the G
agreement to sell was cancelled. It is submitted that considering the
aforesaid circumstances, the High Court has rightly set aside the decree
for specific performance, considering Section 20 of the Specific Relief
Act and has rightly exercised the discretion in favour of the defendants,
rather than in favour of the plaintiff.
H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A 4.3 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the defendants that as on today the price of the property in
question has gone very high and therefore it is prayed not to interfere
with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at
B length.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that the execution of
agreement to sell and receipt of part sale consideration paid under the
agreement to sell has not been disputed by the defendants. It is not in
dispute that the defendants as such agreed to sell the property in question.
C The relevant terms of agreement to sell, as agreed between the parties,
are as follows:
“(a) the balance consideration was to be paid by the Petitioner to
the Respondents within six months from the date of sale
agreement.
D (b) The Petitioner was obligated to measure the property at his
own expense, arrange the balance consideration amount and
prepare the deeds with respect to the plaint schedule property in
favour of himself or in favour of its nominees.
(c) Respondents were to handover the abovementioned deeds as
E also the anterior documents, possession certification, tax receipt
and encumbrance certificate for the last 13 years, purchase
certificate, either in their originals or certified copies within the
stipulated six months to the Petitioner.
(d) After the fulfilment of the above terms and conditions, the
F Respondent No.1 and his wife were obligated to execute the sale
deed prepared by the Petitioner and register the same after
obtaining the balance consideration amount and then accordingly,
the Respondents were to hand over actual possession of the plaint
schedule property to the Petitioner.”
G 6. It is contended on behalf of the defendants that the agreement
to sell was a forced agreement to sell. On the contrary, the defendants
stated in the written statement in para 4 that the defendants were always
ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. It may be true
that at the relevant time the defendants may be in need of money.
However, the fact remains that they agreed to sell the property in question
H
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 257
KURUP [M. R. SHAH, J.]

for sale consideration mentioned in the agreement to sell and as observed A
hereinabove, it was the case on behalf of the defendants that they were
always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Therefore,
as observed hereinabove, it was never the case on behalf of the
defendants in the written statement and/or even before the learned trial
Court that the agreement to sell was inequitable and/or was a forced
B
agreement to sell. Even the learned trial Court also did not frame the
issue, “whether agreement to sell was a forced agreement to sell/contract
or not”. On appreciation of entire evidence on record, the learned trial
Court after recording the findings on the execution of the agreement to
sell by the defendants and receipt of part sale consideration and that the
plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, C
decreed the suit for specific performance. By the impugned judgment
and order, the High Court, as such, has not commented upon and/or set
aside any of the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, recorded
while passing a decree for specific performance. Straightway, the High
Court has considered Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and has
D
observed and held that by enhancing the amount of sale consideration,
the learned trial Court has wrongly exercised the discretion in favour of
the plaintiff. The High Court has commented upon the order passed by
the learned trial Court enhancing the amount of sale consideration and
directing the plaintiff to pay more amount than the sale consideration
mentioned in the agreement to sell. E
7. When to do the complete justice and relying upon and/or
considering the decision of this Court in the case of Pratap Lakshman
Muchandi v. Shamlal Uddavadas Wadhwa, (2008) 12 SCC 67, the
learned trial Court directed the plaintiff to pay some more amount than
the amount mentioned in the agreement to sell, at the most, the plaintiff F
can be said to be aggrieved. Still, the High Court has considered such an
order passed by the learned trial Court against the defendants. As such,
the learned trial Court was absolutely justified in compensating the
defendants by paying some more amount while passing a decree for
specific performance. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the
case and more particularly when the learned trial Court exercised the G
discretion in favour of the plaintiff after having observed and recorded
the findings on the execution of the agreement to sell by the defendants
and that the part sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff which was
accepted by the defendants and thereafter the finding that the plaintiff
was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A learned trial Court was absolutely justified in passing the decree for
specific performance. The High Court has erred in interfering with the
judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, without setting
aside the findings recorded by the learned trial Court recorded while
passing the decree for specific performance. The impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable, both, on law as
B
well as on facts.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside and the judgment and
decree passed by the learned trial Court for specific performance of
C agreement to sell is hereby restored.
However, to do complete justice and in exercise of powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, I direct that over and above the
sale consideration mentioned in the agreement to sell and the amount
already deposited by the plaintiff, the plaintiff to pay a further sum of
D Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the original defendants, to
be paid within a period of six weeks from today. The amount which
might have been deposited by the original defendants, deposited pursuant
to the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, i.e., Rs.
3,10,000/- be also returned/paid to the original defendants.
E 9. The present appeal is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
NAGARATHNA, J.

F 1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment proposed by
His Lordship M.R. Shah, J. However, I regret to agree with the reasoning
as well as the conclusion arrived at by His Lordship. Hence, my separate
judgment.
2. The plaintiff in Original Suit No. 205/2006 has assailed the
judgment dated 03rd November, 2021, passed by the High Court of Kerala
G
at Ernakulam in Regular First Appeal No. 63 of 2009. By the impugned
judgment, the High Court has set-aside the judgment and decree passed
by the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tirur in O.S.
No. 205/2006, by which the suit for specific performance of an agreement
of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights, filed by the plaintiff, was allowed.
H Hence, the appeal by the plaintiff in the suit.
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 259
KURUP [B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred A
to in terms of their rank and status before the Trial Court.
4. The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is stated as under:
4.1 That the defendants who have Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights
over the suit property, measuring 37 cents since 1989, assigned such
rights over the same in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. B
8750/- per cent. That an agreement of sale in respect of the Kanam and
Kuzhikoor rights over the suit property was entered into between the
defendants-sellers and the plaintiff-buyer on 7th August, 2005 in the
presence of witnesses. An advance sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/-
was paid by the plaintiff. The remaining sale consideration was required C
as per the agreement to be paid within six months from the date on
which agreement of sale was entered into, following which the sale
deed was to be executed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominees, in
respect of the Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights, which are valuable
usufructuary rights and possession of the suit property was to be handed
over to the plaintiff. D

4.2 That before the expiry of six months, the defendants were to
make available to the plaintiff documents pertaining to the suit property,
such as tax receipts, non-encumbrance certificate, purchase certificate
etc. That the plaintiff contacted the defendants repeatedly and expressed
his willingness to comply with the terms of the agreement of sale dated E
7th August, 2005. However, defendants sought to evade and delay
compliance with the said agreement on the ground that anterior documents
and certificates relating to the suit property could not be obtained.
4.3 That though the plaintiff had sent a legal notice dated 02nd
November, 2006 calling upon the defendants to execute the deed F
assigning Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights after accepting the balance sale
consideration from the plaintiff, the defendants took no positive steps in
this regard.
4.4 That the plaintiff was ready and willing to tender the balance
sale consideration and have the deed of assignment registered in his G
name within the period stipulated in the agreement. That the defendants
were attempting to evade the agreement of sale in an attempt to obtain
a better price for the Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights over the suit property
as the market value thereof had increased manifold. Therefore, the
plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for specific performance of the
H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A agreement of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights, dated 7th August,
2005.
4.5 With the aforesaid averments, it was prayed that the defendants
be directed to receive the balance sale consideration from the plaintiff
and execute the sale deed in respect of the Kanam and Kuzhikoor
B rights over the suit property in his favour. In the alternative, it was prayed
that the defendants may be directed to return the advance amount of
Rs. 10,000/- paid by the plaintiff, together with interest thereon.
5. In response to the plaint, the defendants filed a written statement,
the contents of which are encapsulated as under:-
C 5.1 That the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his
obligations under the agreement dated 7th August, 2005. That the suit for
specific performance was filed on 13th December, 2006, which was
nearly one year after the expiry of the deadline fixed in the agreement,
for compliance of the terms thereof.
D 5.2 That as per the agreement of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor
rights, the plaintiff-purchaser was to measure the suit property and
accordingly ascertain the sale consideration payable at the rate of
Rs. 8750/- per cent. That no attempt was made by the plaintiff in this
regard. Therefore, it could not be said that the plaintiff was ready and
E willing to perform his part of the agreement, more so, when no attempt
was made by the plaintiff to determine even as much as the exact purchase
price for the Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights over the suit property. That
the plaintiff had paid only Rs. 10,000/- which is a very negligible portion
of the purchase price. That the defendants were in dire need for finances
in order to bear the expenses for cardiac treatment of defendant no. 1.
F Therefore, the defendants had approached the plaintiff repeatedly, with
requests to tender the balance sale consideration. However, the plaintiff
did not pay heed to the requests of the defendants and therefore, the
defendants were constrained to raise the requisite funds by selling their
jewellery and ornaments.
G 5.3 That the defendants agreed to sell their Kanam and Kuzhikoor
rights over the suit property only with a view to urgently raise requisite
finances to enable them to bear the medical expenses for the treatment
of defendant no. 1. Therefore, it was additionally important for the plaintiff
to have duly paid the balance consideration within six months from the
date on which agreement of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights was
H
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 261
KURUP [B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

entered into. Since the plaintiff failed to do so, it could not be concluded A
that he was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the
agreement dated 7th August, 2005.
5.4 That the plaintiff was by occupation, a real estate agent and
frequently engaged in the practice of entering into agreements of sale in
respect of properties and thereafter attempting to find buyers for smaller B
extents or portions of such properties. That since the plaintiff could not
find prospective buyers, he did not pursue the agreement dated 7th August,
2005 for over one year and had been attempting to evade the same.
However, since the value of the suit property considerably increased
over time, the plaintiff sought to claim the same at a price significantly
below the prevailing market rate by placing reliance on a stale agreement C
of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights.
5.5 With the aforesaid averments, it was prayed before the Trial
Court that the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the
agreement of sale dated 7th August, 2005, be dismissed.
D
6. The Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tirur by its judgment and
decree dated 18th August, 2008 allowed the suit filed by the plaintiff and
passed a decree of specific performance of the agreement of sale of
Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights dated 7th August, 2005. Sale consideration
was enhanced by 25% and it was directed that a sale consideration of
Rs. 11,000/- per cent, instead of Rs.8750/- per cent, be paid by the E
plaintiff. It was directed that on payment of the sale consideration, sale
deed in respect of the Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights over the suit property
be executed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of three months
from the date on which the decree was passed.
The salient findings of the Trial Court are as under: F
i) That specifying the time for performance of an agreement
is not sufficient to prove that time was indeed the essence
of the contract. That if time was the essence of the
agreement, either of the parties ought to have initiated due
performance of the same within the specified period. G
However, since neither of the parties to the agreement of
sale had initiated timely steps in pursuance of the said
agreement, it was held that time was not the essence of the
contract.
H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A ii) That the purchase certificate and title deed of the property
were not readily available with the defendants at the time
of entering into the agreement of sale of Kanam and
Kuzhikoor rights over the suit property. That this fact raised
the probability that non-performance of the agreement within
the stipulated time, was not attributable to the plaintiff.
B
iii) That since the transaction in question involved sale of rights
over immovable property, a prudent purchaser would have
to satisfy himself as to the genuineness and validity of the
documents of title. Therefore, the first step ought to have
been taken by the defendants, by handing over the relevant
C documents to the plaintiff, which would have in turn enabled
the plaintiff to measure the property and tender the balance
sale consideration. That the delay in performance of the
agreement of sale could be attributed to the non-availability
and non-furnishing of the title deeds of the plaint schedule
D property.
iv) That the mere fact that the defendants had handed over
the photostat copy of the title deed to the plaintiff, could not
lead to the inference that the plaintiff could have proceeded
to measure the property.
E v) That although a direction of specific performance would
cause some hardship to the defendants, because they could
no longer pursue their intention of constructing a house on
the suit property, that alone would not be a ground to deny
specific performance of a valid agreement.
F vi) That since the value of the suit property had increased
manifold and had doubled within a short span of time, specific
performance, if allowed by payment of the consideration
agreed upon in the agreement, would confer an undue
benefit on the plaintiff. Therefore, the sale consideration
G was enhanced by 25% vis-à-vis the consideration agreed
upon in the agreement dated 7th August, 2005.
7. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred Regular First Appeal
No. 63 of 2009 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. By the
impugned judgment dated 3rd November, 2021, the first appeal was
allowed and the judgment of the Trial Court dated 18th August, 2008 was
H
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 263
KURUP [B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

set aside. The following findings were recorded by the High Court in the A
impugned judgment:
i) That the Trial Court could not have re-fixed the sale
consideration at Rs. 11,000/- per cent as against Rs. 8,750/
- per cent, which was the price agreed upon by the parties.
That the Court could not have dictated or deviated from B
the terms and conditions enumerated in the contract for
sale between the parties.
ii) That under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (prior
to the same being substituted by way of Act No. 18 of
2018) Courts were vested with the discretion to deny the C
relief of specific performance. The Court could balance
competing interests by compensating the plaintiff in terms
of money so as to bring him back to his original position, to
the extent possible. The compensation so granted was to
be understood to be compensation for not granting specific
performance in favour of the plaintiff. The said provision D
did not contemplate exercise of discretion to award an
amount to the defendant in excess of the amount agreed
upon contract of sale, while still allowing specific
performance.
iii) That in the present suit, the agreement of sale of Kanam E
and Kuzhikoor rights was executed on 07th August, 2005
when the defendants were faced with a financial crisis.
What was received by way of advance was merely 4% of
the sale consideration of Rs. 3,23,750/-. Therefore, it was
not a fit case for grant of the discretionary relief of specific F
performance.
iv) Having regard to the fact that the plaintiff had, in compliance
with the judgment of the Trial Court dated 18th August, 2008,
deposited the enhanced consideration of Rs. 3,97,000/-, it
was directed that an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- be paid by G
the defendants to the plaintiff in addition to the advance
sum of Rs. 10,000/- which was paid by the plaintiff at the
time of entering into the agreement of sale dated 07th August,
2005. Such a direction was issued based on a proposal made
to that effect by the counsel appearing on behalf of the
defendants. H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court allowing the regular
first appeal preferred by the defendants, the plaintiff has approached
this Court.
8. We have heard Sri M.K.S Menon, learned advocate appearing
on behalf of the appellant and Sri Raghenth Basant, learned advocate
B appearing on behalf of the respondents, and perused the material on
record.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff made the following
submissions. At the outset it was contended that the High Court was not
right in allowing the first appeal preferred by the defendants by applying
C Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter “the Act”). That
the present case was not a fit case for exercising discretion to deny the
relief of specific performance.
9.1 It was next contended that the Trial Court rightly noted that
the first step ought to have been taken by the defendants, by handing
D over the relevant documents to the plaintiff. That since the purchase
certificate and title deed of the property were not readily available with
the defendants at the time of entering into the agreement, it was rightly
presumed by the Trial Court that the delay in performance of the
agreement of sale was attributable to the defendant.

E 9.2 It was urged that the High Court committed a serious error in
law by applying Section 20 of the Act to deny the relief of specific
performance in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. That the relief could not
be denied on the ground of insufficiency of sale consideration in light of
the fact that the market value of the suit property had increased manifold
over a period of time. That denial of the relief of specific performance
F on such ground was barred by Explanation 1 to Clause (c) of Section 20
(2) of the Act. That although Section 20 permits denial of the remedy of
specific performance where a decree of specific performance would
involve some hardship to the defendant(s), the Explanation to Clause (c)
of Section 20 (2) clarifies that mere insufficiency of consideration would
G not be deemed to constitute ‘hardship.’ Therefore, the consideration
guiding the decision of the High Court to deny the relief of specific
performance, was extraneous.
9.3 It was next contended that the Court ought to have moulded
the relief by having due regard to the conduct of the plaintiff. That the
plaintiff’s conduct was reflective of the fact that he duly pursued the
H
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 265
KURUP [B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

execution of the agreement of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor and A
therefore, was entitled to be awarded a decree of specific performance
in his favour. That in the absence of any proof demonstrative of delay,
unwillingness, unreadiness on the part of the plaintiff, the relief of specific
performance could not have been denied.
9.4 Learned counsel for the appellant contended that this Court B
has authoritatively laid down that in cases where specific performance
of a contract is sought in relation to property, the market value of which
has increased since the date on which contract of sale was entered into,
it would be justified to award an additional amount of consideration to
the seller, at the discretion of the Court, vide Pratap Lakshman
Muchandi and Ors. vs. Shamlal Uddavadas Wadhwa and Ors., C
(2008) 1 SCC 67. Therefore, the Trial Court had not erred in decreeing
the suit for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff, by directing
the plaintiff to pay additional sale consideration to the defendants. That
the direction of the Trial Court to enhance the consideration did not
amount to rewriting the terms of the agreement, but was done with a D
view to balance the equities. That the direction of the Trial Court ought
to be appreciated in light of the fact that the relief of specific performance
is an equitable remedy. In that context it was further submitted that the
plaintiff duly paid the enhanced sale consideration, which fact also would
demonstrate the conduct of the plaintiff and his willingness to execute
the agreement of sale. E

9.5 It was submitted that the reason the plaintiff did not tender the
sale consideration in excess of 4% of the total consideration agreed
upon was because the defendants had not made available any documents
which would enable the plaintiff to satisfy himself as to the title of the
defendants. Therefore, the High Court had erred in holding that since F
only 4% of the sale consideration had been paid, it would not be a fit
case to grant the discretionary remedy of specific performance, without
appreciating the facts of the case in its true perspective.
With the aforesaid averments, it was prayed that the impugned
judgment of the High Court be set-aside and the judgment of the Trial G
Court, be restored.
10. Respondent – defendants’ counsel per contra advanced the
following arguments:

H
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A 10.1 He supported the impugned judgment of the High Court and
contended that the High Court rightly applied Section 20 of the Act and
denied the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 7th
August, 2005. That the defendants’ daughter and son-in-law were desirous
of building a house on the suit property and therefore, they would be put
through great hardship if the suit for specific performance was decreed
B
in favour of the plaintiff; more so, given that market price of the suit
property had increased manifold over a period of time and it would not
be possible for the defendants to purchase rights over land similar to the
suit property with the enhanced consideration awarded by the Trial Court.
10.2 It was further submitted that the High Court rightly
C appreciated that the defendants had entered into the agreement when
they were faced with a financial crisis and therefore, it was imperative
that the plaintiff paid a significant portion of the consideration, if not the
entire sale consideration, within the period of six months as stipulated in
the agreement of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights. That it was in
D the said context that the fact as to payment of merely 4% of the sale
consideration would be relevant to determine the plaintiff’s readiness
and willingness to perform his obligations under the agreement of sale.
That the object of agreement to sell the Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights
over the suit property in the year 2005 was to receive the entire sale
consideration within a period of six months, which would enable the
E defendants to pay off certain debts which had been taken to enable the
defendants to bear the medical expenses towards cardiac treatment of
defendant no. 1. Since the plaintiff refused to pay the balance
consideration within the time stipulated in the agreement, notwithstanding
several requests by the defendants, the defendants were compelled to
F sell their jewellery and ornaments to clear the debts.
10.3 That by refusing to pay sale consideration exceeding 4% of
the total sale consideration within six months from the date of the contract,
the plaintiff defeated the purpose of the agreement to sell the Kanam
and Kuzhikoor rights. That the plaintiff was well aware of the fact that
G the only reason compelling the defendants to sell the Kanam and
Kuzhikoor rights over suit property at a nominal price agreed upon by
the parties was the critical financial condition that the defendants were
faced with at the time of entering into the agreement of sale. That freedom
from financial pressure within a short span of time (six months) was the
sole motive guiding the decision of the defendants to part with the suit
H
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 267
KURUP [B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

property. In that regard, it was contended that time was the essence of A
the agreement and having failed to deposit the balance sale consideration
within the stipulated period, the plaintiff could not subsequently seek the
remedy of specific performance, having defeated the purpose of the
agreement vis-à-vis the defendants.
10.4 It was submitted that admittedly, the defendants had, B
immediately after executing the agreement of sale of Kanam and
Kuzhikoor rights , moved the Land Tribunal, Tirur for obtaining the
purchase certificate. However, the issuance of purchase certificate and
time taken for the same was not under the control of the defendants.
That the plaintiff was well aware of the status of the matter at every
juncture. It was averred that delay on the part of the Land Tribunal in C
granting purchase certificate could neither be attributed to the defendants,
nor could it absolve the plaintiff of his obligations under the agreement
of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights. That had the plaintiff duly got
measured the schedule property and tendered the balance sale
consideration, it could be concluded that he was ready and willing to D
comply with the terms of the agreement.
10.5 With the aforesaid averments it was lastly submitted that the
High Court, appreciated the matter in its true perspective and passed
the impugned judgment which appropriately balances equities between
the parties and the same does not call for interference by this Court. E
Therefore, it was prayed that the instant appeal be dismissed.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties,
the following points would arise for consideration which shall be
considered together:
i) Whether the plaintiff’s conduct demonstrates readiness and F
willingness on his part to carry out his obligations under the
agreement of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights dated
7th August, 2005?
ii) Whether the plaintiff, by not paying consideration above
4% of total sale consideration within the period stipulated G
in the agreement, had defeated the purpose of the
agreement to sell Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights executed
by the defendants?
iii) What order?
H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A The detailed narration of facts and contentions would not call for
reiteration.
12. The High Court has relied on Section 20 of the Act, prior to
the same being substituted by way of Act No. 18 of 2018, to deny the
relief of specific performance to the plaintiff. Section 20 of the Act as it
B stood prior to the Amendment Act of 2018 provided that the jurisdiction
to decree specific performance is discretionary. It said that the Court is
not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. Such
a discretion, however, was not to be exercised arbitrarily, but ought to
have been based on sound and reasonable judicial principles. The Section
also specified the circumstances in which the Court may properly exercise
C the discretion not to decree specific performance and it also specified
when, in an appropriate case, a decree could be given by proper exercise
of discretion. Section 20, as it then stood was not an exhaustive provision,
but merely illustrative as it was not possible to define the circumstances
in which equitable relief could or could not be granted. If, therefore, on
D a consideration of all the circumstances of the case, the Court thought
that it would be inequitable to grant the relief prayed for, it should not do
so.
13. However, in Shenbagam vs. K.K. Rathinavel, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 71, this Court reiterated that in deciding whether or not to
E grant the relief of specific performance, the Courts must be cognizant of
the conduct of the parties, the escalation in the price of the suit property
and consider whether one party will unfairly benefit from the decree.
14. By way of the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018
(hereinafter “the Amendment Act”), Section 20 of the Act has been
F substituted, thereby rendering the relief of specific performance to be a
statutory remedy, instead of a discretionary remedy. Previously, the
unamended provision granted the courts the discretion to deny the relief
of specific performance, on the basis of judicially developed exceptions,
even where it would otherwise be lawful to direct specific performance.
Now, such statutorily created exceptions have been excluded. The
G Amendment Act has eliminated the discretion of the courts in cases
involving specific performance of contracts and grants a right to an
aggrieved party to seek specific performance of a contract in certain
cases, subject to the provisions contained in Sections 11(2), 14 and 16 of
the Act. These Sections deal with ‘Cases in which specific performance
H
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 269
KURUP [B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

of contracts connected with trusts being enforceable’, ‘contracts which A
cannot be specifically enforced’ and ‘personal bars to relief,’ respectively.
15. It is however to be noted that notwithstanding substitution of
Section 20 of the Act, the position of law on all material aspects, such as
the essential elements of readiness and willingness and other aspects
under the unamended Section 16 remains the same. In this regard, the B
decision of this Court in Mehboob-Ur-Rehman (Dead) through LRs
vs. Ahsanul Ghani – [(2019) 19 SCC 415] may be referred to. In the
said case, this Court held that even following the amendment of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963, by way of Act No. 18 of 2018, the position of
law on all material aspects remains the same. It was observed that,
even following the amendment, the law was to the effect that specific C
performance of a contract could not be granted or enforced in favour to
the person who fails to prove that he has already performed or has
always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the
contract which are to be performed by him, other than the terms of
which, the performance has been prevented or waived by the other D
party.
16. Reference may also be had to the decision of this Court in
Sughar Singh vs. Hari Singh (Dead) through LRs and Ors., A.I.R.
2021 SC 5581. In the said case, the question as to applicability of the
unsubstituted provision of Section 20 of the Act on transactions entered E
into prior to the date on which the Amendment Act of 2018, was kept
open. However, the Court held that the provisions subsequently
substituted, may act as a guide to Courts in exercising discretion in matters
dating prior to the substitution, even though such provisions may not
apply retrospectively. The relevant observations of this Court have been
extracted as under: F

“10. Now, so far as the finding recorded by the High Court and
the observations made by the High court on Section 20 of the Act
and the observation that even if the agreement is found to be duly
executed and the plaintiff is found to be ready and willing to
perform his part of the Agreement, grant of decree of specific G
performance is not automatic and it is a discretionary relief is
concerned, the same cannot be accepted and/or approved. In such
a case, many a times it would be giving a premium to the dishonest
conduct on the part of the defendant/executant of the agreement
to sell. Even the discretion under Section 20 of the Act is required H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A to be exercised judiciously, soundly and reasonably. The plaintiff
cannot be punished by refusing the relief of specific performance
despite the fact that the execution of the agreement to sell in his
favour has been established and proved and that he is found to be
always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Not
to grant the decree of specific performance despite the execution
B
of the agreement to sell is proved; part sale consideration is proved
and the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of
the contract would encourage the dishonesty. In such a situation,
the balance should tilt in favour of the plaintiff rather than in favour
of the defendant – executant of the agreement to sell, while
C exercising the discretion judiciously.
For the aforesaid, even amendment to the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 by which section 10(a) has been inserted, though may
not be applicable retrospectively but can be a guide on the
discretionary relief. Now the legislature has also thought it to insert
D Section 10(a) and now the specific performance is no longer a
discretionary relief. As such the question whether the said provision
would be applicable retrospectively or not and/or should be made
applicable to all pending proceedings including appeals is kept open.
However, at the same time, as observed hereinabove, the same
can be a guide.”
E
(emphasis by me)
17. In B. Santoshamma vs. D. Sarala and Anr., (2020) 19
SCC 80 this Court, while examining the amendment made to Section 10
of the Act observed that after the amendment to Section 10, the words
F “specific performance of any contract may, in the discretion of the
Court, be enforced” have been substituted with the words “specific
performance of a contract shall be enforced subject to the provisions
contained in sub-section (2) of Section 11, Section 14 and Section
16”. It was concluded that although the relief of specific performance
of a contract is no longer discretionary, after the amendment, the same
G would still be subject to Section 11, Section 14 and Section 16 of the Act.
18. Applying the law discussed above to the facts of the present
dispute, I am of the view that even in the absence of discretionary power
under Section 20 to deny the relief of specific performance, the plaintiff
was not entitled to claim such relief as a matter of right. The position of
H law, even following the amendment of 2018 remains that the provisions
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 271
KURUP [B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

of Section 16 of the Act have to be mandatorily complied with by the A
party seeking the relief of specific performance. The relief of specific
performance cannot be granted in favour of a party who has not
performed his obligations under the contract. It is therefore necessary
to ascertain whether, the plaintiff had complied with the statutory
prerequisites under Section 16 (c) of the Act, before claiming the relief
B
of specific performance. Section 16 of the Act on being amended w.e.f.
01st October, 2018, reads as under:
“16. Personal bars to relief.—Specific performance of a contract
cannot be enforced in favour of a person—
(a) who has obtained substituted performance of contract under C
section 20; or
(b) who has become incapable of performing, or violates any
essential term of, the contract that on his part remains to be
performed, or acts in fraud of the contract, or wilfully acts
at variance with, or in subversion of, the relation intended D
to be established by the contract; or
(c) who fails to prove that he has performed or has always
been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of
the contract which are to be performed by him, other than
terms of the performance of which has been prevented or E
waived by the defendant.
Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (c),—
(i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not
essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant
or to deposit in court any money except when so directed F
by the court;
(ii) the plaintiff must prove performance of, or readiness and
willingness to perform, the contract according to its true
construction.”
19. Clause (c) of Section 16 of the Act, which is relevant in the G
instant case, though amended w.e.f. 01st October, 2018 clearly states
that unless the plaintiff establishes his readiness and willingness to perform
his part of the contract, he would not be entitled to a decree of specific
performance. Prior to the amendment, the expression “who fails to aver
and prove” was on the statute book and its substitution by the words H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A “who fails to prove” does not bring about any drastic change to the
object and intent of the clause. This is because failing to prove readiness
and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract would first
require averments to that effect to be made in the plaint by the plaintiff.
The absence of such averments regarding readiness and willingness to
perform the essential terms of the contract by the plaintiff would not
B
permit him to let in any evidence on that aspect. It is a settled principle
of law that no evidence can be permitted to be let in in the absence of
averments in the plaint / pleadings vide Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima
Mandal and Ors., (2008) 17 SCC 491. In the said case, a Bench of
this this Court speaking through Raveendran J. laid down as follows:
C (i) No amount of evidence can be looked into, upon a plea
which was never put forward in the pleadings. A question
which did not arise from the pleadings and which was not
the subject matter of an issue, cannot be decided by the
Court.
D (ii) A Court cannot make out a case not pleaded. The Court
should confine its decision to the question raised in pleadings.
Nor can it grant a relief which is not claimed and which
does not flow from the facts and the cause of action alleged
in the plaint.
E 20. Therefore, notwithstanding the amendment to Section 16 of
the Act whereby the expression “who fails to aver and prove” has been
substituted with the phrase “who fails to prove,” the law remains that no
evidence can be let in on a plea that was never put forward in the plaint/
pleadings. But, it is necessary to sound a caveat. Even the absence of
F the words “ready and willing to perform the contract” in the plaint would
now not have an adverse impact on the plaintiff’s case, so long as
plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of
the contract could be gathered on a holistic reading of the plaint.
21. In fact, even in relation to the earlier scheme of Section 16 of
G the Act which required a plaintiff seeking the remedy of specific
performance to ‘aver and prove’ that he was ready and willing to perform
his obligations under an agreement, this Court had observed that it was
sufficient if the averments in substance indicate continuous readiness
and willingness on the part of the person suing, to perform his part of the
contract vide Motilal Jain vs. Ramdasi Devi, A.I.R. 2000 SC 2408.
H
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 273
KURUP [B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

Further, it had been declared that language in Section 16 (c), as it stood A
prior to the Amendment Act of 2018, did not require any specific
phraseology to be followed in relation to the averments as to readiness
and willingness. That the compliance of requirements of readiness and
willingness have to be in spirt and substance and not in letter and form
vide Syed Dastagir vs. T.R. Gopalakrishna Shetty, (1999) 6 SCC
B
337.
That is why the deletion of the words “who fails to aver” in Section
16 (c) of the Act does bring about any real change in the position of law
as it stood prior to the amendment.
22. Further, readiness and willingness cannot be considered in a C
straitjacket formula; it has to be inferred on a consideration of the entire
facts and circumstances of each case and the intention and conduct of
the parties concerned. Even if a party to the contract is ready and has
the requisite funds he may not be willing to perform his part of the contract
and vice versa.
D
23. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of this
Court in His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji vs. Sita Ram
Thapar, (1996) 4 SCC 526 wherein this Court made a distinction
between ‘readiness’ and ‘willingness’ and the manner in which the said
parameters are to be scrutinised in deciding a suit for specific
performance. The relevant findings of this Court are extracted as under: E

“2. There is a distinction between readiness to perform the contract
and willingness to perform the contract. By readiness may be
meant the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which
includes his financial position to pay the purchase price. For
determining his willingness to perform his part of the contract, the F
conduct has to be properly scrutinised.
[xxx]
The factum of readiness and willingness to perform plaintiffs part
of the contract is to be adjudged with reference to the conduct of
G
the party and the attending circumstances. The court may infer
from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was ready
and was always ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract. The facts of this case would amply demonstrate that
the petitioner/plaintiff was not ready nor capacity to perform his
part of the contract as he had no financial capacity to pay the H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A consideration in cash as contracted and intended to bite for the
time which disentitles him as time is the essence of the contract.”
Thus, both readiness as well as willingness have to be established
by the plaintiff on whom the burden is cast in a suit for specific
performance of an agreement. Therefore, the question would arise as to
B whether the plaintiff discharged such burden in the instant case.
24. Further, in J.P. Builders vs. A. Ramdas Rao, (2011) 1 SCC
429, this Court held as under, as regards the onus on a plaintiff claiming
the relief of specific performance, to prove that he had complied with
Section 16 (c) of the Act and had demonstrated ‘readiness’ and
C ‘willingness’ to carry out his obligations under the agreement of sale:
“25. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 mandates
“readiness and willingness” on the part of the plaintiff and it is a
condition precedent for obtaining relief of grant of specific
performance. It is also clear that in a suit for specific performance,
D the plaintiff must allege and prove a continuous “readiness and
willingness” to perform the contract on his part from the date of
the contract. The onus is on the plaintiff.
[xxx]
27. It is settled law that even in the absence of specific plea by
E the opposite party, it is the mandate of the statute that plaintiff has
to comply with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and when
there is non-compliance with this statutory mandate, the Court is
not bound to grant specific performance and is left with no other
alternative but to dismiss the suit. It is also clear that readiness to
F perform must be established throughout the relevant points of time.
“Readiness and willingness” to perform the part of the contract
has to be determined/ascertained from the conduct of the parties.”
25. As per the agreement of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights,
dated 07th August, 2005, the plaintiff was obligated to carry out the
following terms:
G
(a) The plaintiff was obligated to measure the property at his own
expense;
(b) Prepare the deeds with respect to the plaint schedule property
in favour of himself or in favour of his nominees;
H
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 275
KURUP [B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

(c) The balance consideration was to be paid by the plaintiff to A
the defendants within six months from the date of agreement.
The agreement also stipulated that the defendants were to:
(a) Handover the abovementioned deeds as also the anterior
documents, possession certification, tax receipt and encumbrance
certificate for the last thirteen years, purchase certificate, either in their B
originals or certified copies to the plaintiff;
(b) On receipt of the balance sale consideration execute the sale
deed in favour of the plaintiff within six months.
The relevant terms of the agreement are reproduced hereinunder: C
st
“The 1 Parties have decided to assign the above property
belonged and possessed by them to 2nd Party by fixing an amount
of Rs.8750/- (Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only) for
their rights of Kanam and Kuzhikkoor rights over the property
and the 2nd Party has agreed for the same and accordingly the 1st D
Parties have received an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand
Only) from the 2nd Party towards advance for the consideration
amount. It has been decided that the 2nd Party shall measure the
property on his expense, arrange the balance consideration amount
and prepare the deeds pertaining to the above property in favour
of 2nd party or in favour of the nominees of 2nd Party within 6 E
(six) months from today and the 1st Parties shall sign the deed
prepared by the 2nd Party and register the same after obtaining
the balance consideration amount from 2nd Party and hand over
actual possession of the property to 2nd party. It is further decided
that the 1st party shall hand over the above mentioned deeds and F
anterior documents, possession certificate, tax receipt,
encumbrance certificate for the last 13 years, purchase certificate,
either in original or certified copies, within the above said period
to 2nd Party.”
26. Nothing was brought on record by the plaintiff to demonstrate
G
that positive steps were taken by him in pursuance of the agreement of
sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights. It is trite that the relief of specific
performance cannot be granted in favour of a party who has not
performed his obligations under the contract. The only exception to such
rule is that a party is not required to perform those obligations, as are
prevented or waived by the other party to the contract. H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A 27. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff had
paid an amount, which constituted merely 4% of the consideration. The
Trial Court itself recorded findings to the effect that neither party had
initiated timely steps to perform their respective obligations under the
contract. Although the defendants did not make available the title deeds
of the schedule property to the plaintiff, it could not be said that the
B
conduct of the defendants had prevented the plaintiff from tendering the
balance sale consideration, within the stipulated date, or at any time
before filing the suit for specific performance as the whole object of the
intended sale was to garner funds for discharging a debt which was
ultimately done by the defendants by selling family jewellery.
C 28. That paragraph 11 of the Trial Court’s judgment records a
finding to the effect that the defendants had applied for the purchase
certificate in the year 2005 itself, i.e., soon after entering into the
agreement of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights. The same was
obtained on 31st May, 2007. This fact would suggest that there was no
D delay on the part of the defendant in acting in pursuance of the
agreement. The fact that the purchase certificate was granted by the
concerned authority only on 31st May, 2007, was beyond the control of
the defendants and such delay could not be attributed to the defendants.
The defendants had duly initiated the process of obtaining a purchase
certificate soon after entering into the agreement.
E
29. While learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has contended
that since the transaction in question involved the transfer of rights in
immovable property, a prudent purchaser would have to satisfy himself
as to the genuineness and validity of the documents of title, and therefore,
owing to the non- availability of documents of title, the plaintiff was
F unable to proceed with his obligations, no explanation has been provided
as to why ancillary steps such as measurement of the property was not
proceeded with. Delay in securing relevant documents from the
concerned authorities could not absolve the plaintiff of his obligations
under the agreement of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights. Further,
G this aspect of the matter is to be appreciated in light of the fact that there
is nothing on record which would demonstrate any step taken by the
plaintiff to pursue the agreement, until, 02nd November, 2006, on which
date, the legal notice was served on the defendants calling upon them to
execute the sale deed in respect of the Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights
over the suit property. No explanation has been provided as to why the
H
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 277
KURUP [B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

legal notice was not served earlier, particularly when the six-month period A
stipulated under the agreement had expired on 7th February, 2006. Such
conduct of the plaintiff is certainly not reflective of willingness, in terms
of Section 16(c) of the Act.
30. Further, the Court has to be mindful of circumstances which
compelled the defendants to enter into the agreement of sale of Kanam B
and Kuzhikoor rights dated 7th February, 2006. The time limit stipulated
in the agreement is of significance in the instant case when this aspect is
viewed in light of the fact that the defendants were debt-ridden and
sought to sell their Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights over suit property with
the sole intention of clearing off such debts which were incurred to
support the cardiac treatment of defendant no. 1. It was therefore C
necessary that the plaintiff paid a significant portion of the consideration,
if not the entire sale consideration, within the period of six months as
stipulated in the agreement. But the plaintiff refused to do so even on
being repeatedly requested by the defendants.
31. At this juncture, it may also be apposite to refer to the decision D
of this Court in Saradamani Kandappan vs. S. Rajalakshmi, (2011)
12 SCC 18 wherein this Court had an occasion to consider the aspect
of payment of a nominal advance by the plaintiff and effect of the amount
of advance paid on the decision of the Court to grant the discretionary
relief of specific performance. This Court has authoritatively laid down E
that it would amount to injustice to hold that a vendor who took a very
meagre sum as earnest money, and agreed that the rest of the
consideration would be paid within a stipulated period of time, did not
intend that time was of essence to the contract. The relevant portion of
the said judgment is usefully extracted as under:
F
“37. The reality arising from this economic change cannot continue
to be ignored in deciding cases relating to specific performance.
The steep increase in prices is a circumstance which makes it
inequitable to grant the relief of specific performance where the
purchaser does not take steps to complete the sale within the
agreed period, and the vendor has not been responsible for any G
delay or non-performance. A purchaser can no longer take shelter
under the principle that time is not of essence in performance of
contracts relating to immovable property, to cover his delays,
laches, breaches and “non-readiness”. The precedents from an
era, when high inflation was unknown, holding that time is not of H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A the essence of the contract in regard to immovable properties,
may no longer apply, not because the principle laid down therein
is unsound or erroneous, but the circumstances that existed when
the said principle was evolved, no longer exist. In these days of
galloping increases in prices of immovable properties, to hold that
a vendor who took an earnest money of say about 10% of the
B
sale price and agreed for three months or four months as the
period for performance, did not intend that time should be the
essence, will be a cruel joke on him, and will result in injustice.
Adding to the misery is the delay in disposal of cases relating to
specific performance, as suits and appeals therefrom routinely
C take two to three decades to attain finality. As a result, an owner
agreeing to sell a property for rupees one lakh and received rupees
ten thousand as advance may be required to execute a sale deed
a quarter century later by receiving the remaining rupees ninety
thousand, when the property value has risen to a crore of rupees.”
D (emphasis by me)
32. Further, regarding the factors that ought to guide the Court’s
decision in decreeing a suit for specific performance, particularly when
the agreement of sale has not been given effect to within the time
stipulated therein, the following directions issued in an earlier decision in
E K.S. Vidyanadam vs. Vairavan (1997) 3 SCC 1, were reiterated:
(i) The courts, while exercising discretion in suits for specific
performance, should bear in mind that when the parties
prescribe a time/period, for taking certain steps or for
completion of the transaction, that must have some
F significance and therefore time/period prescribed cannot
be ignored.
(ii) The courts will apply greater scrutiny and strictness when
considering whether the purchaser was “ready and willing”
to perform his part of the contract.
G (iii) Every suit for specific performance need not be decreed
merely because it is filed within the period of limitation by
ignoring the time- limits stipulated in the agreement. The
courts will also “frown” upon suits which are not filed
immediately after the breach/refusal. The fact that limitation
is three years does not mean that a purchaser can wait for
H
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 279
KURUP [B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

1 or 2 years to file a suit and obtain specific performance. A
The three-year period is intended to assist the purchasers
in special cases, as for example, where the major part of
the consideration has been paid to the vendor and possession
has been delivered in part- performance, where equity shifts
in favour of the purchaser.
B
(emphasis by me)
In light of the said directions, the period of six months which was
stipulated in the agreement of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights, in
the present case, has to be accorded its due significance while deciding
the suit for specific performance. Having regard to the urgency of the C
financial need of the defendants, which need had prompted them to sell
their Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights over the suit property, it must be held
that time stipulated in the agreement was the essence of the contract.
33. Further, the direction of this Court in the aforecited case
regarding the onus on the party claiming specific performance to initiate D
action immediately after the breach or refusal by the other party to the
contract, is also relevant to the facts of the present case. The plaintiff in
the present case served a legal notice only on 02nd November, 2006
while the six month period stipulated in the agreement had elapsed on
07th February, 2006. There is no explanation as to what occasioned the
delay in serving the legal notice on the defendants and why such steps E
were not adopted soon after the expiry of the six month period stipulated
in the agreement of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights.
34. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff, having paid no more
than 4% of the sale consideration, and having not done even as much
as getting the property measured within the period of six months F
stipulated under the agreement, cannot, at a belated date, claim specific
performance of the agreement dated 7 th August, 2005 to the
disadvantage and hardship of the defendants.
35. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has sought to rely on the
decision of this Court in Pratap Lakshman Muchandi and Ors. vs. G
Shamlal Uddavadas Wadhwa and Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 67 wherein it
was held that in cases where specific performance of a contract is sought
in relation to property, the market value of which has increased since the
date on which contract of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights was
entered into, it would be justified to award an additional amount of
H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A consideration to the seller, at the discretion of the Court. While I am
mindful of the fact that Courts may grant such a relief to balance equities,
such a decree would be warranted only in cases where the plaintiff
satisfactorily establishes compliance with Section 16 of the Act. That
the measure of enhancement of compensation may be awarded at the
discretion of the Court only if insufficiency of compensation is the only
B
impediment to ensuring equity and preventing undue gain to one party.
In the absence of compliance with the elementary requirements of Section
16 of the Act, enhancement of compensation cannot be employed as a
device to allow specific performance in cases where the plaintiff has
not performed his obligations under the contract as in the instant case.
C 36. In my view, this appeal must fail on the sole ground that the
conduct of the plaintiff was not reflective of his readiness as well as
willingness on his part to pursue the agreement of sale of Kanam and
Kuzhikoor rights, in terms of Section 16(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the
present appeal is dismissed.
D 37. At this juncture, it is clarified that the result of this appeal has
been arrived at having regard to the conduct of the plaintiff, which does
not reflect his willingness to comply with the terms of the agreement of
sale dated 7th August, 2005. The suit for specific performance of the
agreement of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights would fail on the
E sole ground that the plaintiff has failed to comply with the essential
requirements of Section 16(c) of the Act. Although it is acknowledged
that the defendants would be put through hardship if the suit for specific
performance was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, the appeal has been
decided dehors considerations of hardship to the defendants, or of other
circumstances under which the contract was entered into which could
F give the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendants, which are
considerations in equity as the relief of specific performance is essentially
an equitable remedy though crystalised in the form of a legislation as per
the Act. Thus, the appeal has not been decided in light of Section 20 of
the Act, as it stood prior to the Amendment Act of 2018. The question as
G to applicability of the provision of Section 20 of the Act as it stood prior
to its amendment in 2018, on transactions entered into prior to the date
on which the Amendment Act of 2018, is thus kept open.
38. The impugned judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated
rd
03 November, 2021 whereby the High Court set-aside the judgment
H and decree passed by the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of the Subordinate
C. HARIDASAN v. ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA 281
KURUP [B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

Judge, Tirur in O.S. No. 205/2006 (by which the suit for specific A
performance of an agreement of sale of Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights,
filed by the plaintiff was decreed), is affirmed. This appeal is dismissed.
Parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

Nidhi Jain Matter referred to larger Bench.
B
(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Tamana, LCRAs)

C

D

E

F

G

H