M.Chandran Vs Sbm Trust by Its Secretary — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2026)

M.Chandran Vs Sbm Trust by Its Secretary — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the suit for specific performance on the ground that an unregistered agreement of sale cannot be enforced, when there is no legal hurdle to maintaining such a suit under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. +2 more

Court's answer

Substantial question of law (a) does not arise for consideration: the courts below dismissed the suit mainly for failure to establish readiness and willingness, not on the ground that the suit sale agreement was unregistered; therefore the first substantial question need not be answered.

Ratio / Principle

Under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 a plaintiff seeking specific performance must plead and prove his readiness and willingness; merely because the defendant has not filed a written statement or denied readiness and willingness, the plaintiff is not absolved of that burden.

Key takeaways

A person seeking performance of a contract is expected to file the suit for specific performance within a reasonable time; what constitutes reasonable time depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no straight-jacket formula can be laid down.ratio¶43
On the facts, by paying the entire sale consideration on the date of the 14.12.1997 agreement the plaintiff established his readiness; however, by failing to take any step to complete the sale transaction (stamp papers, preparation of the deed, presentation before the Sub-Registrar) for nearly 20 years, he failed to prove his willingness, and the courts below were therefore justified in dismissing the suit on that ground.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Second Appeal S.A.No.279 of 2020 (with C.M.P.No.5806 of 2020), M.Chandran (plaintiff/appellant) v. SBM Trust (defendant/respondent, set exparte, no counsel appeared), decided 24.03.2026 by S.SOUNTHAR, J.: DISMISSED, no costs, connected civil miscellaneous petition closed. Suit O.S.No.404 of 2017 (Additional District Munsif, Namakkal) for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 14.12.1997 (consideration Rs.50,000/-, alleged fully paid on the date of agreement, possession delivered) was dismissed for want of acceptable explanation for the delay of nearly 18 years; first appeal A.S.No.26 of 2019 (Additional Sub Court, Namakkal, judgment and decree dated 03.09.2019) affirmed. Substantial questions of law were formulated on 16.08.2024. Held (ratio): (i) under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the plaintiff must plead and prove readiness and willingness, and an exparte defendant does not absolve that burden; (ii) a suit for specific performance must be brought within a reasonable time, which is case-specific with no straight-jacket formula; (iii) although full payment on the date of agreement proved readiness, nearly 20 years of total inaction until the first notice (Ex.A2, dated 06.12.2017) meant willingness was not proved, so both courts below were justified, with no perversity, and substantial questions (b) and (c) were answered against the appellant. Substantial question (a) (enforceability of an unregistered agreement vis-a-vis Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908) was held not to arise, since the courts below had not rested dismissal on non-registration, and was left unanswered; it was observed in passing (obiter) that non-registration does not affect the right to seek specific performance.