Specific performance cannot be denied merely for delay or price escalation when the purchaser remained ready and willing to perform.

Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 makes specific performance discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles and not arbitrarily. Delay or a rise in market value does not by itself justify refusal of enforcement, especially where the purchaser was continuously ready and willing to perform and the delay was not attributable to her. A party in default cannot rely on its own conduct to defeat the contract. On the facts, the record did not support imposing an additional Rs. 40 lakhs as a condition precedent, as that would have frustrated the bargain. The purchaser was therefore entitled to specific performance at the contractual price.

---

---

Issues: Whether specific performance of the agreement to sell should be granted without imposing an additional payment of Rs. 40 lakhs, despite delay and escalation in the price of immovable property.

Analysis: Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 makes relief of specific performance discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles and not arbitrarily. Delay or rise in market value by itself is not an absolute ground to refuse specific performance. The appellant had been found ready and willing to perform her part of the contract throughout, and the delay was not attributable to her. The respondents, on the other hand, could not rely on their own default to resist enforcement of the agreement. The record did not justify imposing an additional Rs. 40 lakhs as a condition precedent, since that would effectively frustrate the bargain.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to specific performance of the agreement on the contractual price, without the additional payment of Rs. 40 lakhs.

---