Specific Performance of an Agreement to Sell Immovable Property
A buyer seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property must establish a valid contract, breach by the seller, and continuous readiness and willingness to perform their own obligations. The suit is governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the plaintiff must specifically plead and prove compliance with Section 16(c). The 2018 amendment to the Act has altered the nature of the remedy, making specific performance a mandatory relief subject to limited grounds for refusal.
Courts examine whether time was intended to be the essence of the contract and whether the buyer had the financial capacity to pay the balance consideration. The listed cases address the foundational requirements for a decree of specific performance, the effect of the 2018 amendment, and the circumstances in which a third-party sale may defeat the claim. The holdings in these judgments guide the evaluation of evidence on readiness and willingness and the discretion of the court.
The leading cases
12 judgments · 12 Supreme Court · most-cited first
What LexPilot's research engine returns for this question, ranked by court and how often each judgment has been cited since. Read the full judgment before you rely on a holding.
- 1
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors.
2006 INSC 216Supreme Court · 2006cited 6,553 times
The appeal was disposed of in favour of the State. The Supreme Court held that there is no fundamental right to regularization or permanent absorption for employees engaged on daily wages, temporarily, or…
- 2
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others
2010 INSC 843Supreme Court · 2010cited 5,228 times
The High Court's order was not sustainable and was set aside. The Supreme Court, following the Constitution Bench in Sibbia, held: (a) s. 438 CrPC must be interpreted in light of Art. 21; (b) limitations in s. 437…
- 3
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors.
2002 INSC 148Supreme Court · 2002cited 2,152 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's bail order, and cancelled the bail. The High Court committed a manifest error by granting bail without cogent reasons, ignoring the subsequent FIR and…
- 4
Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India Thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice
2018 INSC 790Supreme Court · 2018cited 1,538 times
Section 377 IPC is partially read down and struck down insofar as it penalises consensual sexual activity between adults. It is violative of Arts.14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The provision remains valid to…
- 5
State of Kerala v. M.K. Krishnan Nair & Ors
1978INSC27Supreme Court · 1978cited 1,537 times
Held by majority: (1) It is open to the State Government to constitute as many cadres in any particular service as it may choose according to administrative convenience and expediency. Therefore, the State Government's…
- 6
State of Orissa & Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty
2011 INSC 113Supreme Court · 2011cited 1,483 times
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals holding: (1) A teacher appointed without requisite qualification cannot receive grant-in-aid or UGC pay scale until the deficiency is cured; UGC pay scale cannot be granted…
- 7
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
2020 INSC 620Supreme Court · 2020cited 1,346 times
Statement recorded under s. 67 NDPS Act is inadmissible as substantive evidence; officers under s. 53 NDPS Act are "police officers" under s. 25 Evidence Act; confessions made to them are barred; conviction based…
- 8
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others
2008 INSC 1234Supreme Court · 2008cited 1,272 times
Appeals allowed. Company paid staff constitute a separate and distinct class and are not entitled to absorption in sanctioned posts as of right; Arts. 14 and 16 are not violated. The 1999 Scheme is constitutionally…
- 9
Balco Employees Union (regd.) v. Union of India and Ors
2001INSC601Supreme Court · 2001cited 1,240 times
The disinvestment of 51% equity of BALCO and transfer of its management is an economic policy decision and is not amenable to judicial review unless it is demonstrably violative of constitutional or legal limits or…
- 10
Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb
2021 INSC 50Supreme Court · 2021cited 1,078 times
The appeal is dismissed. Constitutional Courts retain jurisdiction to grant bail on the ground of violation of Part III of the Constitution even where a statute like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA imposes restrictions on…
- 11
M/S Indian Oil Corporation v. M/S Nepc India Ltd. and Ors.
2006 INSC 452Supreme Court · 2006cited 995 times
The allegations in the complaint are sufficient to constitute offences under Sections 415 and 425 IPC. High Court was not justified in quashing the complaints in entirety. The order of High Court insofar as it quashes…
- 12
Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
1994 INSC 53Supreme Court · 1994cited 977 times
The Court upheld the Government's decision to place Pharmacists Grade-B in two different pay scales based on their qualifications under Section 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, rejecting the petitioners' claim based on…
Frequently asked questions
What must a buyer plead and prove to satisfy Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act?
The buyer must aver and demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness from the date of the contract until the decree. The pleadings must contain specific statements of the buyer's capacity to pay the balance consideration and the steps taken to perform the contract. A mere statement of readiness without supporting financial evidence is insufficient.
Is time the essence of a contract for sale of immovable property?
In transactions relating to immovable property, time is not ordinarily considered the essence of the contract unless the agreement expressly provides for it or the circumstances indicate that the parties intended it to be so. The court will examine the conduct of the parties and the nature of the property to determine whether the stipulated time was a fundamental term.
How does the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act affect a suit for specific performance?
The 2018 amendment substituted Section 10, making specific performance a mandatory remedy where a plaintiff proves a valid contract and breach, subject to the limited grounds for refusal enumerated in the Act. The court's discretion to substitute damages for specific performance is now constrained, and the plaintiff's right to the agreed property is strengthened.
Can a buyer obtain specific performance if the seller has already sold the property to a third party?
A subsequent sale to a third party does not automatically defeat a suit for specific performance. The court will examine whether the third party is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the prior agreement. If the third party had notice, the buyer may still obtain a decree, and the third-party sale may be disregarded.
Free trial · Research assistance, not legal advice — always read the judgment before you rely on it.
More on civil procedure & property
- Interim Injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Rejection of Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Amendment of Pleadings After Commencement of Trial (Order 6 Rule 17 CPC)
- Condonation of Delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Adverse Possession: Ingredients, Hostile Plea and Use as a Sword
- Eviction of Tenant on Ground of Bona Fide Requirement
- Land Acquisition Compensation and Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
- Scope of Review Petition Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC