Gujarat High Court Says Plaintiff Must Prove Continuous Readiness for Specific Performance Relief

In Miskinbanu Jahidkhan Pathan & Ors. v. Alisher Subhanali Ansari & Anr., the Gujarat High Court held that a plaintiff seeking specific performance of a contract must continuously establish readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and that such readiness cannot be proved through mere assertions alone.

Justice J. C. Doshi observed that the burden squarely lies upon the plaintiff to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness from the date of the agreement until final adjudication of the suit. The Court clarified that this requirement must be inferred from the conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances rather than from self-serving statements in pleadings.

The matter arose from appeals challenging a City Civil Court decree directing specific performance of an agreement to sell executed on October 1, 1985. The plaintiff contended that part consideration had been paid and that he remained willing to fulfil his obligations. The defendants argued that time was the essence of the contract and alleged failure on the plaintiff’s part to complete the transaction within the stipulated period.

During the pendency of the suit, the property was sold to a third party despite an injunction order, leading the plaintiff to seek cancellation of the subsequent sale deed.

After examining the conduct of the parties, payments made, and surrounding circumstances, the High Court concluded that the plaintiff had successfully proved continuous readiness and willingness. Upholding the trial court’s decree, the Court dismissed the appeals and reaffirmed that equitable relief under the Specific Relief Act can only be granted upon strict compliance with statutory requirements.