The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent order dated 28.11.2025 in R. Shama Naik v. G. Srinivasiah, SLP(C) No. 13933 of 2021 has, while dismissing the petition, clarified the distinction between the terms readiness and willingness in respect of S.16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“the Act”).

The Petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with the Respondent in 2005. The Petitioner filed a suit praying for the relief of specific performance of the said agreement or in the alternative for refund of earnest money. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Petitioner, thereafter, the Respondent approached the Karnataka High Court in appeal. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the Trial Court on the ground that the Petitioner failed to establish his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Thus, the Petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition.

The Court took note of S.16(c) of the Act and observed that there is a bar on granting relief of specific performance in favour of a person who fails to establish readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.

The Court further clarified the distinction between the two terms. The Court said that readiness means the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract including his financial position, whereas willingness is related to his conduct. As per the settled position, the Plaintiff has to aver and prove that he is ready and willing to perform the contract.

The Court also took note of the finding of the High Court that the Petitioner had not adduced any evidence to prove that he had the requisite funds to pay the balance consideration as on the date on filing of the suit and hence he had failed to establish his readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

The Court therefore held that in a suit for specific performance, the Plaintiff has to adduce necessary oral and documentary evidence to show the availability of funds to make payment in terms of the contract in time along with averments in the plaint. Mere averments in the plaint would not be sufficient to establish readiness and willingness. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

By - Ansh Mittal