Readiness and willingness for specific performance may be proved from pleadings and conduct; alternative damages claim does not bar relief.

Delay in filing a suit for specific performance does not justify only where the claim is within limitation and no intervening third-party rights or inequitable consequences are shown; the Court found no such bar here. Readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 must be gathered from the plaint as a whole and the party's conduct, and the pleadings and evidence were held sufficient. An alternative prayer for damages does not defeat a substantive claim for specific performance, as Section 21 permits such relief; the High Court's refusal was set aside and the decree for specific performance was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether delay in filing the suit justified denial of specific performance; (ii) whether the plaint and evidence satisfied the requirement of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; (iii) whether the claim for damages as alternative relief disentitled the plaintiff to specific performance.

Issue (i): whether delay in filing the suit justified denial of specific performance.

Analysis: Delay in a suit for specific performance is relevant only where it exceeds limitation or where, despite being within time, it has altered rights of third parties or made grant of relief inequitable. On the facts, the suit was not barred by limitation and no such inequitable consequence or intervening third-party rights were shown. The High Court proceeded on an incorrect factual assumption regarding the period of delay.

Conclusion: Delay did not justify denial of specific performance.

Issue (ii): whether the plaint and evidence satisfied the requirement of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Analysis: Readiness and willingness is not to be tested by any rigid formula or specific phraseology. The pleadings must be read as a whole, and compliance is to be gathered from their substance and from the conduct of the party. The plaint disclosed demand for receipt of the balance consideration and execution of the sale deed, and the evidence supported the plaintiff's preparedness to perform his remaining obligation.

Conclusion: The requirement of readiness and willingness was satisfied.

Issue (iii): whether the claim for damages as alternative relief disentitled the plaintiff to specific performance.

Analysis: A prayer for compensation in the alternative does not by itself negate the main claim for specific performance. Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 permits such an alternative claim, and it does not amount to an abandonment of the principal relief.

Conclusion: The alternative claim for damages did not bar specific performance.

Final Conclusion: The judgment of the High Court could not be sustained, and the decree for specific performance granted by the trial court stood restored with consequential direction for execution of the sale deed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for specific performance, readiness and willingness must be determined from the pleadings and conduct as a whole without insisting on any particular form of words, and an alternative prayer for damages does not defeat the substantive right to specific performance.

---