A. Shahul Hameed v. N. Malligarjuna and Ors. 2026 INSC 573

On March 19, 2010, the plaintiff (A. Shahul Hameed) entered into a sale agreement with the defendants to purchase property (Survey No. 75/12) for a total consideration of Rs. 9,30,000. The plaintiff paid Rs. 9,00,000 (approximately 93% of the total price) as earnest money at the time of the agreement. The remaining Rs. 30,000 was to be paid within four months upon the execution of the sale deed.

The plaintiff claimed he was always ready to complete the transaction, but the defendants sought more time and eventually demanded more money in December 2010. After the defendants threatened to sell to a third party, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on February 1, 2011, and subsequently filed a suit for specific performance.

The defendants argued the agreement was merely a nominal/security document executed to secure a separate transaction involving Bangalore Buyers. They also relied on an alleged reconveyance deed executed on the same day.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, finding the agreement genuine. The First Appellate Court agreed the agreement was genuine but denied specific performance, arguing the plaintiff failed to prove “readiness and willingness” because he did not issue the legal notice immediately after the four-month period expired.

The High Court modified the judgment, concluding the agreement was only for security and denied the relief of specific performance entirely, ordering only a refund of the money.

High Court’s Jurisdiction (Section 100 CPC): The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erred by reappreciating evidence to reach a different conclusion than the lower courts. Under Section 100 CPC, a High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. Both lower courts had found the agreement genuine based on the testimony of the plaintiff, the scribe, and an attesting witness.

Rejection of the Security Document Plea: The Supreme Court found the defendants’ security defense improbable. They failed to produce evidence of the alleged transaction with the Bangalore Buyers or explain why a sale agreement was used as security. Furthermore, the alleged reconveyance deed was found unreliable as its witnesses were unaware of its contents.

Readiness and Willingness (Section 16(c) SRA 1963): The Court emphasized that “readiness and willingness” must be gathered from the entirety of facts and the conduct of the parties. Paying 93% of the sale consideration is a strong indicator of readiness; it is illogical to assume a buyer who paid nearly the full amount would be unwilling to pay the small remaining balance (Rs. 30,000/-). The Court held that a delay in issuing a legal notice (issuing it after the four-month window) does not automatically negate readiness, especially when the suit is filed within the legal limitation period. The defendants’ failure to reply to the plaintiff’s legal notice led the Court to draw an adverse inference against them.