A. Shahul Hameed v. N. Malligarjuna & Ors., 2026

The parties entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 19 March 2010 for the sale of immovable property for a total consideration of ₹9,30,000.

The plaintiff paid ₹9,00,000 as earnest money, leaving only ₹30,000 to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.

The sale deed was agreed to be executed within four months.

According to the plaintiff, after expiry of the stipulated period, he repeatedly approached the defendants requesting execution of the sale deed.

The defendants sought additional time and later allegedly demanded a higher sale consideration.

When the plaintiff refused to pay any additional amount, the defendants allegedly threatened to transfer the property to a third party.

The plaintiff thereafter issued a legal notice dated 1 February 2011, calling upon the defendants to receive the balance consideration and execute the sale deed.

The defendants neither replied to the legal notice nor executed the sale deed.

Consequently, the plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance within the prescribed limitation period.

The Trial Court decreed the suit, and the First Appellate Court affirmed the decree.

However, the High Court, in second appeal, reversed the concurrent findings, holding that the delay in issuing the legal notice reflected lack of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.

The plaintiff challenged the High Court's judgment before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the decree passed by the Trial Court.

The Court held that mere delay in issuing a legal notice cannot, by itself, demonstrate lack of readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

It observed that readiness and willingness must be evaluated by considering the entire conduct of the parties and all surrounding circumstances.

The Bench emphasized that the plaintiff had already paid ₹9,00,000, representing approximately 93% of the agreed sale consideration, which strongly indicated his intention to complete the transaction.

The Court found that the plaintiff had consistently approached the defendants for execution of the sale deed and had ultimately instituted the suit well within the statutory limitation period.

The Court noted that despite receiving the legal notice, the defendants failed to issue any reply disputing either the agreement or the allegations made by the plaintiff.

It held that the defendants' silence justified drawing an adverse inference against them and indicated that their defence was an afterthought.

The Bench observed that the High Court committed an error by attaching undue importance to the delayed legal notice while ignoring the plaintiff's overall conduct.

Relying upon R. Lakshmikantham v. Devaraji and Mademsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yelloji Rao, the Court reiterated that where a suit is filed within limitation, mere delay cannot ordinarily defeat the plaintiff's claim for specific performance.

Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the decree for specific performance granted by the Trial Court was restored.

The Court clarified that the plaintiff's conduct throughout the contractual relationship is more significant than isolated procedural events such as delayed issuance of a legal notice.

By emphasizing the payment of 93% of the sale consideration, the Court highlighted that substantial performance is a strong indicator of genuine contractual intention.

The decision reinforces that courts should adopt a holistic approach while adjudicating suits for specific performance.

The judgment also recognizes that an unexplained failure to respond to a legal notice may justify drawing an adverse inference against the defendant.

By relying on earlier Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that delay within the statutory limitation period is legally permissible and ordinarily cannot defeat equitable relief.

The ruling discourages courts from rejecting genuine claims solely on technical procedural grounds.

The decision will serve as an important precedent in suits for specific performance where defendants seek to rely upon delayed legal notices despite the plaintiff's consistent willingness to perform the contract.