Facts: The appellant (plaintiff) entered into a registered agreement with the respondents (defendants) to purchase a flat in a co-operative society for Rs. 50,00,000. The plaintiff paid Rs. 1,00,000 as part consideration. The agreement stipulated that the defendants would obtain the society's consent for the transfer. Subsequently, the plaintiff paid an additional Rs. 30,00,000, which was later refunded when the society's consent could not be obtained. A supplementary agreement was executed, stating the plaintiff would pay the balance Rs. 49,00,000 upon obtaining society consent. Despite efforts, consent was not granted, and the defendants sought to cancel the agreement, offering to return the initial Rs. 1,00,000. The plaintiff then issued a legal notice seeking specific performance, which the defendants refused.
Procedural Posture: The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance in the trial court, which was dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal to the District Court was also dismissed. This second appeal was filed in the High Court challenging the concurrent decrees dismissing the suit for specific performance.
Issue: Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit for specific performance, considering the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, and whether delay in instituting the suit should be held against the plaintiff when the suit was filed within the period of limitation.
Holding: The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and that the delay, though within the limitation period, weighed against granting specific performance.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the defendants had made diligent efforts to obtain the society's consent. The plaintiff's insistence on society consent, despite knowing it wasn't legally required, and the delay in seeking specific performance after the defendants' termination notice, indicated a lack of readiness and willingness. The Court noted that while time is not generally the essence in contracts for immovable property, delay can be a factor in exercising discretion for specific performance. The Court also considered the defendants' communication to the plaintiff about financial losses due to the delay. The acceptance of the refund of Rs. 30,00,000/- was seen as reinforcing the plaintiff's insistence on the society's consent, rather than demonstrating readiness and willingness. The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Chand Rani, to emphasize that even if time is not the essence of the contract, performance must occur within a reasonable time, and delay can impact the grant of discretionary relief.