Specific performance denied for failure to prove readiness, willingness and financial capacity under the Specific Relief Act.

Specific performance was refused because the appellants failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The evidence of financial capacity, including bank entries and related documents, did not satisfactorily show that the balance sale consideration was available when required. The Court also noted that the appellants did not voluntarily deposit the balance amount to demonstrate bona fides. Given the notices exchanged, the long lapse of time, and the surrounding facts, the equitable relief of specific performance was held inappropriate, and the refusal to decree the suit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to specific performance of the agreement of sale, in particular whether they proved continuous readiness and willingness and sufficient financial capacity to perform their part of the contract.

Analysis: The agreement was dated 14.11.1994 and the dispute had continued for nearly three decades by the time of the appeal. The evidence relied on to show funds consisted mainly of bank entries and related documents, but they did not establish that the appellants had the balance sale consideration available at the relevant time in a satisfactory manner. The Court also held that the appellants did not voluntarily deposit the balance consideration even to demonstrate bona fides. In the surrounding facts, including the notices exchanged between the parties and the long lapse of time, the Court found that the appellants had not proved the statutory requirement under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and that the equitable relief of specific performance should not be granted.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to specific performance, and the refusal to decree the suit was upheld.

---