In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has provided a detailed interpretation of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, particularly Section 16(c). The case, Gaddipati Divija & Anr. Vs. Pathuri Samrajyam & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4206-4207 of 2011 dated 18.04.2023) revolved around a dispute related to the specific performance of a contract to sell. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that to demonstrate readiness and willingness, a purchaser is not necessarily required to produce money or provide a finalized scheme for financing the transaction.

Facts of the Case
The case involved a sale agreement where the vendor, G. Venugopala Rao, agreed to sell a property to the plaintiff, Pathuri Samrajyam. The vendor was required to get the land measured and demarcated within three months, following which, the purchaser was required to pay the balance sale consideration. However, the vendor failed to fulfil his obligations, leading to a dispute over the specific performance of the contract.

Key Principles Laid Down by the Supreme Court:

1. Readiness and Willingness to Perform: The court emphasized that to prove readiness and willingness, a purchaser does not necessarily have to produce money or vouch for a concluded scheme for financing the transaction. In this case, the plaintiff successfully established her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract by expressing her intent to pay the balance sale consideration.
2. Performance of Obligations: The court noted that the performance of the purchaser's obligation to pay the balance sale consideration was dependent upon the fulfilment of the vendor's obligation. As the vendor failed to perform his obligations, the question of paying the balance sale consideration by the plaintiff did not arise.
3. Applicability of Amended Section 16(c): The court held that the 2018 Amendment to Section 16(c) was not merely a procedural enactment. It had substantive principles built into its working, and as such, the Amendment is prospective in nature and cannot apply to transactions prior to its enforcement. Thus, Section 16, as it stood prior to the 2018 Amendment, shall apply to the present case.
4. Time as the Essence of the Contract: The court ruled that the question of time being the essence of the contract does not arise in this case. The plaintiff established that she was always ready and willing to pay the balance consideration.
5. Conduct of the Parties: The court underscored that any person seeking the benefit of the specific performance of a contract must demonstrate that their conduct has been flawless throughout, making them eligible for the specific relief. The provision imposes a personal bar, and the court grants relief based on the conduct of the person seeking it.

Implications of the Judgment
This judgment has significant implications for the interpretation and application of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It underscores the importance of the conduct of the parties involved and the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform their part of the contract. It also provides clarity on the applicability of the amended Section 16(c) prior to the 2018 Amendment.

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar