Long Unexplained Delay And Inaction Disentitles For Equitable Relief Of Specific Performance: Hon’ble Supreme Court held inPydi Ramana @ Ramulu vs. Davarasety Manmadha Rao

Background:
The case involves a civil appeal filed by Pydi Ramana (the appellant), challenging the judgment that partially allowed a specific performance suit filed by Davarasety Manmadha Rao (the respondent).

Key Issues:

1. Whether the specific performance of a sale agreement dated 07.06.1993 should be enforced.
2. Whether the respondent-plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
3. The appropriateness of the appellate court’s decision to direct the respondent to pay twice the sale consideration.

Facts:

• An agreement was made on 07.06.1993 for the sale of property measuring 1.38 acres at Rs. 705 per cent.
• The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 2,005/- and another sum of Rs. 17,000/- on 23.06.1993.
• The defendant allegedly delayed executing the sale deed, leading to a legal notice being issued on 30.05.1996 and a subsequent suit for specific performance or refund of the advance amount with interest filed on 09.06.1997.
• The trial court denied specific performance but ordered a refund with interest.
• The appellate court reversed this decision and granted specific performance.
• The High Court in the second appeal directed the plaintiff to pay additional sale consideration (twice the amount).

Supreme Court’s Analysis:

1. Validity of Agreement and Breach:

   • The agreement was valid, but the defendant did not perform the survey, which was a precondition for determining the final sale consideration.

2. Readiness and Willingness:

   • Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act mandates that the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
   • The plaintiff’s prolonged inaction (three years) before issuing the legal notice and filing the suit indicated a lack of readiness and willingness.

3. Delay and Conduct:

   • The plaintiff failed to take necessary steps to ensure the land survey or to demand performance from the defendant within a reasonable time.
   • The delay in issuing the legal notice and filing the suit undermined the plaintiff’s claim of readiness and willingness.

Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
• The appellate court and High Court erred in granting specific performance.
• The trial court’s decision to deny specific performance and order a refund with interest was reinstated.

Judgment:
The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court and First Appellate Court judgments. The trial court’s judgment dated 19.01.2002 was restored, denying specific performance and ordering a refund with interest. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.