Specific performance requires continuous readiness and willingness, and equitable discretion may still justify refusing the remedy.

Specific performance under the Specific Relief Act depends on the plaintiff proving continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the Court found that condition unmet on the facts, including delay and lack of convincing financial preparedness. Even where enforceability is otherwise shown, the remedy remains discretionary, and the Court declined specific performance because of the long passage of time, the subsequent purchasers' long occupation, and the equities between the parties. Monetary relief was directed instead, so the decree for specific performance was refused but alternative compensation was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaintiff had proved continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract so as to qualify for specific performance; (ii) whether, in the facts and circumstances, discretionary relief of specific performance ought to be granted.

Issue (i): whether the plaintiff had proved continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract so as to qualify for specific performance.

Analysis: The relief of specific performance is conditioned on compliance with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which requires the plaintiff to aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The surrounding conduct, including delay in pursuing the claim, absence of convincing evidence of financial preparedness, and the overall chronology, was relevant to assess whether that condition had been satisfied. The Court held that the plaintiff had not established the necessary continuous readiness and willingness.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondents.

Issue (ii): whether, in the facts and circumstances, discretionary relief of specific performance ought to be granted.

Analysis: Even where a contract is otherwise enforceable, grant of specific performance remains discretionary under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court took into account the long passage of time, the possession and occupation of the subsequent purchasers since 1981, and the equities arising from the conduct of both sides. In those circumstances, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of specific performance and instead directed payment of money to the appellant.

Conclusion: The discretion for specific performance was refused, with monetary relief directed in lieu thereof.

Final Conclusion: The decree for specific performance was not granted, but the appellant obtained an alternative monetary direction, so the appeal succeeded only to a limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree for specific performance can be denied where the plaintiff fails to prove continuous readiness and willingness, and even otherwise the remedy remains discretionary and may be refused on equitable considerations.

---