Specific performance of immovable property contracts depends on equity, diligence, and conduct, not limitation alone.

Specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property is an equitable and discretionary remedy, and a suit filed within limitation does not automatically entitle the purchaser to relief. Even where time is not expressly of the essence, the contractual period, the purchaser's conduct, and the surrounding circumstances remain relevant. Here, the purchaser remained inactive for more than two years beyond the agreed period, failed to tender the balance consideration within time, and the evidence suggested the claim was driven by a rise in property values. On those facts, refusal of specific performance was justified as the delay made equitable relief inappropriate.

---

---

Issues: Whether specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property should be granted when the purchaser remained inactive for more than two years beyond the contractual period, though the suit was filed within limitation, and whether such delay, coupled with the rise in property values, justified refusal of the equitable relief.

Analysis: The contractual stipulation of six months for completing the transaction had significance even though time was not treated as the essence of the contract. The statutory scheme under Section 10 and Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 makes specific performance a discretionary and equitable remedy, while Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 do not compel a decree merely because the suit is within time. The purchaser took no effective steps for more than 2 1/2 years, did not tender the balance consideration within the agreed period, and the evidence supported the vendors' version that the claim was prompted by a steep rise in urban property prices. In such circumstances, mere absence of an express time-is-of-the-essence clause did not entitle the purchaser to specific performance as of right.

Conclusion: Specific performance was rightly refused, as the purchaser failed to act within a reasonable time and the delay made the grant of equitable relief unjustified.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where time is not the essence of a contract for sale of immovable property, the court must consider the contractual time-limit, the conduct of the parties, and the surrounding circumstances to decide whether specific performance should be granted within its equitable discretion.

---