Proving Readiness and Willingness in a Specific Performance Suit

If you paid earnest money and the seller is now refusing to complete the sale, you can sue for specific performance to force the sale deed. But under Section 16© of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the court will grant the decree only if you prove you were “ready and willing” to perform your side of the contract, continuously, from the date of the agreement right up to the hearing. The Supreme Court has made one thing very clear: a bank statement or fixed deposit you arranged only after you filed the suit does not prove you had the money at the earlier, relevant time. Late proof of funds is not proof of timely funds.

“Readiness” is about your financial capacity to pay the balance price. “Willingness” is about your conduct, whether you actually did what the contract required of you and pressed to close the deal. You have to satisfy both, and you have to satisfy them for the whole period, not just on the day you walk into court.

The logic is simple. The question a court asks is: did the buyer have the money available when it was due under the contract, and did the buyer stay ready afterwards? A fixed deposit receipt dated years after the suit was filed answers a different question, it shows you had funds much later, when the litigation was already on. It says nothing about whether you could have paid on the date the balance fell due. Judges treat such documents as an afterthought created for the case, not contemporary evidence of capacity.

So if your agreement said the balance was payable in four months and you sue years later, waving a recent bank balance around will not save the claim. The court looks at the money position across the relevant window, from the agreement date to the filing of the suit.

To show genuine, continuous readiness and willingness, gather evidence tied to the correct dates:

• Bank statements and passbooks from the contract period showing the balance amount was actually available around the time it fell due, not years later.
• Fixed deposits, loan sanction letters or sale proceeds of other assets dated close to the performance date, showing where the money would come from.
• Written demands and legal notices you sent asking the seller to execute the sale deed and take the balance, proving you were pressing to close.
• Proof you did your part of any conditions, for example applying for statutory permissions, producing documents the contract required, or offering to deposit the balance.
• A clear averment in the plaint that you were and remain ready and willing, backed by the money trail above.
• Prompt action. File the suit without long, unexplained delay. Specific performance is a discretionary, equitable remedy, and a buyer who sits quiet for years weakens the claim even if funds existed.

If your money only materialised after the dispute started, be honest about it in your own assessment, because the other side will point it out and the court will notice.

In Mohammed Khaleel (D) through LRs and Others v. Jayamma, 2026 INSC 651, decided on 23 June 2026, the Supreme Court (Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N. V. Anjaria) dismissed a buyer's appeal for exactly this reason.

The agreement to sell a vacant site was executed in December 1990. The price was ₹3 lakh, of which ₹25,000 was paid as earnest money, with the balance due within four months. Disputes followed over completing the transaction and statutory permission, and the buyers filed the specific performance suit on 20 December 1993, nearly two years and nine months after the seller had refused to perform.

To prove they had the money, the buyers relied on fixed deposit receipts dated 04 October 1999, 22 November 1999, 03 April 2001 and 23 August 2001, all created several years after the suit was filed. The Court held that these could not establish financial readiness during the relevant period, which ran from the date of the agreement to the filing of the suit. In its words, financial documents created years after the institution of the suit cannot be relied upon to establish readiness.

The buyers also failed on willingness. Despite the contract requiring cooperation in obtaining statutory permission, they had not furnished the necessary documents and had remained passive. Combined with the long, unexplained delay in approaching the court, this meant the twin requirements of Section 16© were not met, and the equitable relief of specific performance was refused. The appeal was dismissed.

The takeaway for any buyer: build and preserve your money trail from the moment you sign, act promptly, and keep written proof that you kept asking the seller to complete the sale.

Readiness and willingness is the stage where you win the decree. It is separate from what happens after you win. Once a court passes a decree of specific performance, it usually fixes a time within which you must deposit the balance price, and missing that deadline can cost you the decree under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. That later, post-decree stage is covered in our guide on the specific performance decree deposit deadline under Section 28. This article is only about the earlier hurdle, proving readiness and willingness so you win in the first place.

It requires the buyer seeking specific performance to prove that they were, and continue to be, ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract that are to be performed by them. Readiness refers to financial capacity to pay, and willingness refers to conduct showing genuine intent to complete the deal. Both must hold from the agreement date until the suit is decided.

Not for the relevant past period. A statement or fixed deposit created after you filed the suit shows funds at a later date, not on the date the balance was due under the contract. Courts, including the Supreme Court in Mohammed Khaleel v. Jayamma, treat such late documents as insufficient to prove timely financial readiness.

You need to show you had the capacity to arrange and pay the balance when it was due and that you stayed ready. This can be a bank balance, a fixed deposit, a sanctioned loan, or the sale proceeds of another asset. What matters is credible evidence tied to the correct dates, not a permanent idle deposit.

Yes. Specific performance is a discretionary, equitable remedy. A long, unexplained delay in approaching the court, as in Mohammed Khaleel v. Jayamma where the suit came almost two years and nine months after refusal, can weaken or defeat the claim even where some funds existed.

Readiness is your financial ability to pay the balance price. Willingness is your conduct, whether you actually did your part, such as producing documents, applying for permissions, or offering the balance, and kept pressing the seller to execute the sale deed. A buyer who had money but stayed passive can still fail on willingness.

Send a written legal notice demanding execution of the sale deed against payment of the balance, and preserve proof of your funds from the contract period. Keep copies of every communication. If the seller still refuses, file a suit for specific performance promptly, and if there is any cloud on your rights you may also need a declaration of title suit under Section 34. Builders who refuse possession are a related but distinct problem, covered in our guide on how to complain when a builder is not handing over the flat.

If you need to send a demand notice or gather records to build your money trail, our AI RTI Drafter tool can help you draft a clear request, and The RTI Playbook explains how to obtain official records like permission files and mutation entries that support your case. Keep every dated document from the day you sign the agreement, that paper trail is what proves readiness and willingness when it matters.

This article is general information, not legal advice. For a specific dispute, consult a qualified advocate.

Written and reviewed by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak.

• Supreme Court, Mohammed Khaleel (D) through LRs and Others v. Jayamma, 2026 INSC 651, 23 June 2026 (LiveLaw): https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/specific-relief-act-readiness-must-be-proved-from-time-for-agreement-execution-not-just-after-filing-suit-supreme-court-538718
• Verdictum case report: https://www.verdictum.in/supreme-court/mohammed-khaleel-d-through-lrs-ors-v-jayamma-2026-insc-651-specific-relief-1616522
• Law Trend case report: https://lawtrend.in/lack-of-timely-funds-and-delayed-filing-fatal-to-specific-performance-claim-supreme-court-dismisses-purchasers-appeal/