SANGITA SINHA versus BHAWANA BHARDWAJ AND ORS.

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 551 · Decided: 03-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 551 : 2025 INSC 450
Sangita Sinha 
v. 
Bhawana Bhardwaj and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4972 of 2025)
04 April 2025
[Dipankar Datta and Manmohan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether a suit for specific performance of an agreement 
to sell is liable to be decreed if the buyer had accepted the refund 
of the majority of the earnest money deposit/advance consideration, 
during the pendency of the suit.
Headnotes†
Specific Performance Act, 1963 – Specific performance of an 
agreement – Acceptance by buyer of refund of consideration 
amount – Effect on relief of specific performance – Unregistered 
agreement to sell executed between the buyer-respondent 
no. 1 and the seller – Buyer paid certain sum in cash and issued 
three post-dated cheques – Upon failure of seller to execute 
the sale deed, buyer filed a suit seeking specific performance 
of agreement to sell – Seller made a complaint to the police 
stating that her signatures had been fraudulently taken on 
the agreement to sell and seller issued a letter cancelling the 
agreement, and refunded some amount through demand drafts 
and returned two of three post dated cheques, which were 
subsequently encashed – On death of the seller, respondent 
no. 3-step grandson of seller impleaded along with appellant 
in whose favour subject property had been bequeathed – Trial 
court passed the judgment in favour of the buyer – High Court 
upheld the same – Correctness:
Held: Conduct of buyer in encashing the demand drafts establishes 
beyond doubt that the buyer was not willing to perform her part of 
agreement to sell and proceed with execution of the sale deed, 
and the fact that entire advance consideration/earnest money had 
not been returned to the buyer is irrelevant and immaterial – Act 
of buyer in encashing the demand drafts leads to an irresistible 
* Author
552
[2025] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
conclusion that the agreement stood cancelled – Seller had 
issued a letter cancelling the Agreement to Sell prior to the filing 
of the suit, the same constitutes a jurisdictional fact as till the said 
cancellation is set aside, the buyer is not entitled to the relief of 
specific performance – Thus, in absence of a prayer for declaratory 
relief that cancellation of the agreement is bad in law, suit for 
specific performance not maintainable – Plea that appellant lacked 
the locus standi to file the present appeal as she did not have any 
right, interest or title over the subject property is misconceived on 
facts – Appellant is a beneficiary under the Will executed by the 
original owner/seller, whereby the subject property was bequeathed 
in her favour – Appellant, being a necessary and interested party 
to the lis, has the locus to file the present appeal – Furthermore, 
the onus to establish readiness and willingness is on the buyer 
and the failure to establish the same disentitles the buyer from 
the equitable and discretionary relief of specific performance – 
Buyer failed to disclose in the plaint that the seller had issued the 
cancellation letter, enclosing demand drafts and cheques which 
amounts to suppression of material fact, disentitling her from the 
discretionary relief of specific performance – Thus, agreement 
to sell cannot be specifically enforced – Impugned judgment set 
aside – Sale deed executed in favour of buyer declared null and 
void. [Paras 15, 17-21, 25-30]
Specific performance – Specific performance of – Grant of 
relief – ‘Readiness’ and ‘willingness’ to perform contract – 
Explanation: 
Held: ‘Readiness’ and ‘willingness’ are not one but two separate 
elements – ‘Readiness’ means the capacity of the buyer to perform 
the contract, which would include the financial position to pay the 
sale consideration – ‘Willingness’ refers to the intention of the 
buyer as a purchaser to perform his part of the contract, which is 
inferred by scrutinising the conduct of the buyer/purchaser, including 
attending circumstances – Continuous readiness and willingness 
on the part of the buyer/purchaser from the date of execution of 
Agreement to Sell till the date of the decree, is a condition precedent 
for grant of relief of specific performance – It is not enough to show 
the readiness and willingness up to the date of the plaint as the 
conduct must be such as to disclose readiness and willingness at 
all times from the date of the contract and throughout the pendency 
of the suit up to the decree. [Paras 17-20]
[2025

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.