A suit for specific performance asks a court to compel a seller to convey property, and the burden it places on the buyer is heavier than is often assumed. In V.N.A.S. Chandran v. S. Venila & Ors., 2026 INSC 776, decided on 31 July 2026 in Civil Appeals Nos. 7825–7828 of 2013, a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria set aside a Madras High Court decree of specific performance and restored the trial court’s refusal, in a judgment that gathers the settled principles on readiness, willingness, conduct and delay.
The Background
The dispute arose from an agreement of 2004 for the sale of property at Udhagamandalam for Rs. 2.25 crore, against which the buyers paid an advance of Rs. 85 lakh. The sale deed was never executed. The buyers sued for specific performance; the trial court refused the decree. On appeal, the Madras High Court reversed and directed execution of the sale deed, and the seller carried the matter to the Supreme Court.
By the time the appeals were finally heard, more than twenty years had passed since the agreement. The original plaintiff had died during the pendency of proceedings, and the seller had reached an advanced age.
What the Supreme Court Held
Readiness must be continuous
The plaintiffs had to show the availability of funds and their readiness and willingness at all material points of time — from the agreement, through the suit, to the decree. The record showed dishonoured cheques and no proof of funds when the suit was filed.
Late money is no answer
A demand draft produced at the close of the appellate hearing could not retrospectively establish readiness at the times that mattered. Capacity demonstrated years later does not cure the absence of proof for the earlier period (paras 38–39).
Delay defeats equity
Specific performance is an equitable remedy, granted in the court’s discretion on settled principles (para 44). A lapse of over two decades, with changed circumstances on the seller’s side, militated against granting it (para 52).
Inconsistent conduct counts
Pursuing a criminal complaint for recovery of money while simultaneously seeking conveyance of the property reflected contradictory positions incompatible with equitable relief (paras 45–47).
How a Specific Performance Claim Is Tested
The agreement. The plaintiff proves a concluded, enforceable agreement to sell, with its essential terms — price, property, time for performance — established.
Readiness and willingness. The plaintiff pleads and proves continuous readiness and willingness, including financial capacity, from the agreement onwards. This is a statutory precondition under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Conduct and equities. The court examines the conduct of both sides — defaults, dishonoured instruments, parallel proceedings, changed circumstances — before exercising its discretion.
Relief. If the decree is refused, the court moulds relief: typically refund of the advance with interest, so that refusal of conveyance does not become a windfall for the seller.
Why the Judgment Matters in Practice
Suits for specific performance are among the longest-lived items on Indian civil dockets, and it is common for the final appellate decision to come decades after the bargain. V.N.A.S. Chandran is a reminder that time is not neutral in such litigation. A plaintiff who cannot document financial capacity at every stage — bank statements, sanctioned loans, liquid funds — builds a fatal gap into the case, however strong the agreement itself may be. For sellers resisting stale claims, the judgment confirms that long lapse of time and altered circumstances are legitimate grounds on which a court may withhold the decree even after findings on the agreement go against them.
The decision also illustrates the careful unwinding a refusal involves: the buyers here recovered their Rs. 85 lakh advance with interest and withdrew their deposit of Rs. 1.40 crore with accrued interest. Refusal of specific performance, in other words, is not forfeiture.
For agreements governed by the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, the framework governing the grant of specific performance has been recast by Parliament, and the manner in which courts apply it continues to develop. The principles of continuous readiness and willingness and of scrutiny of the plaintiff’s conduct, restated in this judgment, remain central to how these suits are actually fought and decided.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Every matter turns on its own facts and record.
Frequently Asked Questions
What must a buyer prove to obtain specific performance of a sale agreement?
Beyond proving the agreement itself, the buyer must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform — including the financial capacity to pay the balance consideration — from the date of the agreement through the trial and appellate stages. Producing funds years later, at the hearing of an appeal, does not establish that the buyer was ready at the material times.
How does delay affect a claim for specific performance?
Specific performance is an equitable and discretionary relief. Even where a suit is filed within limitation, a long lapse of time between the agreement and the final adjudication — over two decades in this case — together with changed circumstances such as the seller's advanced age, can persuade a court to decline the decree and confine the buyer to a refund.
Does the buyer's conduct outside the suit matter?
Yes. The Court took note of dishonoured cheques and of the plaintiff side pursuing a criminal complaint seeking recovery of money while simultaneously suing for specific performance. Inconsistent positions of that kind reflect on genuineness and disentitle a party from equitable relief, which is reserved for those who approach the court with consistent, clean conduct.
What happens to the money already paid when specific performance is refused?
The refusal of specific performance does not extinguish the buyer's monetary claims. In this case the Supreme Court directed refund of the Rs. 85 lakh advance with interest and permitted the plaintiffs to withdraw the Rs. 1.40 crore they had deposited during the proceedings, together with the interest accrued on it.