https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196326 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. en-us Thu, 06 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:19:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196326 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196326