Sample Civil Judgment — Specific Performance

A suit for specific performance is the judiciary aspirant's favourite mains problem precisely because it forces every skill the examiner is testing at once: clean issue framing, a disciplined reading of pleadings, command over Sections 10, 16 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the judgment-writing craft of turning a discretionary equitable remedy into an enforceable decree. This chapter walks through a complete model judgment for an agreement to sell immovable property, annotating each component so you can reproduce the structure under exam conditions. Read it alongside the structure of a civil judgment and the statutory basis chapters so the skeleton and the flesh fit together.

The problem as the examiner sets it

Assume the facts your paper supplies: A (plaintiff) and B (defendant) execute a written agreement to sell a residential plot for a fixed consideration, with a sum paid as earnest money and the balance payable against execution of the sale deed within a stipulated period. The plaintiff pleads that he was always ready and willing to perform, that the defendant evaded execution and later purported to resile, and he sues for specific performance with a consequential prayer for possession. The defendant denies, pleads that time was of the essence, that the plaintiff never had funds, and that the agreement stood cancelled. Your task is not to decide who you like; it is to construct a judgment that an appellate court could affirm. Before drafting, settle the architecture in your mind from the structure chapter: cause-title, narration of pleadings, issues, issue-wise discussion, findings, and the operative decree.

The single most common reason mains answers lose marks here is that candidates write an essay on the law of specific performance instead of a judgment that disposes of these pleadings. Keep the worked record in front of you and resist the temptation to lecture.

Note also what the problem does not give you, because a judgment is built on the record and not on speculation. If the paper is silent on whether the plaintiff issued a notice demanding execution, or on whether he had the balance in hand, you must reason from the evidence actually pleaded and led, and where a party has withheld the best evidence in his power you are entitled to draw an adverse inference. The examiner is watching to see whether you decide on the material before you or import facts that suit a preferred outcome; a judgment that invents evidence is worse than one that candidly records a gap and decides on burden of proof. Anchor yourself to the four corners of the plaint, the written statement, the documents exhibited and the depositions, and let the decree follow from them.

Cause-title and the narration of pleadings

Open with the cause-title exactly as the cause-title chapter prescribes: the court, the suit number and year, the description of the parties with their array, and the nature of the suit ("Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated ___"). Then narrate the rival cases compactly. The plaintiff's case is summarised first, drawing only on the plaint, following the discipline set out in statement of facts — the plaintiff's case; the defendant's case follows from the written statement, per statement of facts — the defendant's case.

A judgment-writing trap specific to this suit: where the defendant pleads that the agreement was terminated or cancelled, note in the narration whether the plaintiff has sought a declaration that the cancellation is bad. In I.S. Sikandar v. K. Subramani, (2013) 15 SCC 27, the Supreme Court held that where the agreement of sale had been terminated, a bare suit for specific performance without a prayer to declare the termination illegal was not maintainable. You must record the pleadings accurately enough that this point, if it arises, is visible from your own narration before you reach the issues.

Framing the issues

Issues are framed under Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the material propositions of fact or law affirmed by one party and denied by the other. In a specific-performance suit the indispensable issues are: (i) whether the agreement to sell is proved and is valid and subsisting; (ii) whether the plaintiff was and continued to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; (iii) whether time was of the essence and, if so, with what consequence; (iv) whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance, or in the alternative to refund of earnest money with compensation; and (v) relief.

The readiness-and-willingness issue is not optional. In V.S. Ramakrishnan v. P.M. Muhammed Ali (Supreme Court, 9 November 2022) the Court held that a trial court must frame a specific issue on the plaintiff's readiness and willingness and record a finding on it; the omission is a serious infirmity. In your answer, frame that issue in terms and number it, because the entire judgment will turn on it. This is the discipline the introduction chapter flags as the difference between a judgment and a narrative.

Burden of proof and the order of discussion

Decide the order of issue discussion deliberately. Take the existence and validity of the agreement first, because if the document is not proved, the rest collapses. The burden of proving execution rests on the plaintiff, who must prove the agreement as a document under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 / the erstwhile Evidence Act, 1872, through the attesting witness or other admissible proof, and must establish that the consideration and the essential terms are as pleaded.

Only after holding the agreement proved do you move to readiness and willingness, then to time as essence, and then to the discretionary question of relief. Writing the issues out of sequence is a common error; a judgment reads as reasoned when each finding is a logical predicate for the next. Record the burden expressly on each issue — examiners award marks for the candidate who states who must prove what before weighing the evidence.

Issue 1 — Is the agreement proved, valid and subsisting?

Discuss the documentary and oral evidence proving execution. If the agreement is admitted, record the admission and move on; if denied, weigh the attesting witness, the handwriting, the earnest-money receipt and any contemporaneous conduct. Address validity: a concluded contract requires certainty of the essential terms — parties, property, price and time for completion. Where the defendant pleads cancellation, return a finding on whether the agreement subsists, keeping I.S. Sikandar v. K. Subramani, (2013) 15 SCC 27, in view; if the plaintiff has not sought a declaration against a proved termination, the suit may fail at the threshold and you should say so here rather than at the relief stage.

Conclude the issue with a clear finding — "Issue 1 is answered in the affirmative; the agreement to sell dated ___ is proved and subsists between the parties" — so the reader knows precisely what has been decided before turning the page.

Two practical points improve this issue. First, distinguish between an agreement to sell and a completed sale: under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an agreement to sell does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on the property, so the suit rests on a contractual right to seek conveyance, not on a proprietary title already vested. Saying this in terms shows the examiner you understand what the plaintiff is actually enforcing. Second, where the defendant alleges that the document is a security or a loan transaction rather than a genuine agreement to sell, treat that as a question of the true nature of the transaction to be gathered from the recitals and surrounding conduct, and record a finding, because if the document is not a contract of sale at all the relief of specific performance of a sale simply does not arise.

Issue 2 — Readiness and willingness under Section 16(c)

This is the heart of the judgment. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 bars relief to a plaintiff who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. The Explanation to the section clarifies that the plaintiff need not actually tender money to the defendant or deposit it in court except when so directed, but must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.

Draw the now-classic distinction the Supreme Court laid down in His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji v. Sita Ram Thapar, (1996) 4 SCC 526: readiness refers to the plaintiff's capacity — his financial position to pay the purchase price — while willingness relates to his conduct and intention to perform. Both are necessary; a plaintiff who is willing but financially incapable, or capable but evasive in conduct, fails the test. In U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 840, the Court reiterated that where the obligation is to pay money, the plaintiff must make specific averments in the plaint and lead evidence of availability of funds; a bare recital of readiness is not enough.

Applying readiness and willingness to the record

Having stated the law, apply it to the worked facts. Examine whether the plaint contains the requisite averment of continuous readiness and willingness from the date of the agreement up to the filing of the suit, and whether the plaintiff has proved capacity — bank statements, sanction of a loan, sale of other property, or other evidence of funds. The Supreme Court in Mst. Sugani v. Rameshwar Das, (2006) 11 SCC 587, cautioned that readiness and willingness is not a straitjacket formula and must be judged in spirit and substance from the totality of circumstances, not by the mere presence or absence of magic words.

Scrutinise conduct: did the plaintiff issue a notice calling on the defendant to execute the sale deed and offering the balance? Did he attend the sub-registrar's office? Conversely, did he sit on the agreement and sue only when prices rose? Record a reasoned finding. If you hold the plaintiff has discharged the Section 16(c) burden, say so in terms; if not, the suit must fail however valid the agreement, and you proceed only to the alternative relief of refund.

Be precise about timing. The settled requirement is that readiness and willingness must subsist continuously from the date of the agreement through to the date the suit is filed; a plaintiff cannot rely on capacity acquired only after the breach, nor on a fleeting willingness that lapsed. Equally, the Explanation to Section 16(c) means you should not refuse relief merely because the plaintiff did not physically tender the price to the defendant or deposit it in court before being directed to; the test is the genuineness of his preparedness, judged on the whole record. Where the obligation is to pay money, follow U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 840, and look for concrete proof of funds — a vague assertion that the plaintiff "was always ready" unsupported by any evidence of means will not carry the issue. Conversely, applying Mst. Sugani v. Rameshwar Das, (2006) 11 SCC 587, do not defeat a plaintiff who has substantively demonstrated capacity and willingness merely because the plaint did not parrot the statutory words.

Issue 3 — Was time of the essence?

In contracts for sale of immovable property, the ordinary presumption is that time is not of the essence, but this presumption is neither absolute nor an invitation to indefinite delay. In K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan, (1997) 3 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that even where time is not the essence, the time-limits the parties themselves fixed cannot be ignored altogether, and that a plaintiff who allows long delay — there, filing after two and a half years — invites refusal of the discretionary relief, particularly in a market of rising prices.

The Court revisited the subject squarely in Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi, (2011) 12 SCC 18, observing that the assumption that time is never of the essence in immovable-property contracts requires reconsideration in modern conditions of rapid price escalation, and that the stipulated time-schedule must be given due weight. In your judgment, examine the agreement's payment schedule, the conduct of both parties, any extensions, and whether the delay is explained, then record whether time was of the essence and what consequence follows for the relief.

Discretion after the 2018 amendment — Sections 10 and 20

You must reflect the change wrought by the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, in force from 1 October 2018. The amended Section 10 now provides that specific performance of a contract "shall be enforced" by the court, subject to Sections 11(2), 14 and 16, replacing the earlier discretionary language. The Supreme Court has treated these amendments as substantive and prospective, so a judgment must first identify whether the agreement and suit are governed by the pre- or post-amendment regime.

Even so, do not overstate the shift. The court is not converted into a mechanical rubber stamp: the gateways of Section 16 (the plaintiff's own readiness and conduct) and Section 14 (contracts that cannot be specifically enforced) survive, and equity continues to inform relief. The pre-amendment jurisprudence on equitable conditions remains instructive: in Nirmala Anand v. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd., (2002) 5 SCC 481, the Court held that while granting specific performance it may impose reasonable conditions — including payment of an additional amount — to prevent unjust enrichment and balance the equities between the parties. The amended Section 20, dealing with substituted performance, supplies an alternative avenue but is distinct from the relief of specific performance and is not the operative remedy in our worked suit.

Issue 4 and 5 — Entitlement to relief and the consequential prayer

Gather the findings. If the agreement is proved and subsisting, the plaintiff has discharged his Section 16(c) burden, time-related delay does not disentitle him, and no Section 14 bar applies, then under the amended Section 10 specific performance "shall be enforced." Where the plaintiff has prayed for possession in addition to execution of the sale deed, grant the consequential relief; a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property ordinarily carries with it delivery of possession, and the plaintiff is well advised to seek it expressly, as I.S. Sikandar underscores the importance of complete and correctly-framed reliefs.

If instead the plaintiff fails on readiness and willingness, or on a proved termination he did not challenge, refuse specific performance and consider the alternative claim: refund of earnest money with interest, and compensation under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act where pleaded. Always record what happens to the earnest money — directing its refund or its appropriation is part of a complete decree.

Mind the pleading rule on compensation. Section 21 allows the court to award compensation for breach; note that after the 2018 amendment Section 21(1) permits compensation "in addition to" specific performance, the earlier alternative of compensation "in substitution" having been removed. Crucially, Section 21(5) bars the award of compensation unless it has been specifically claimed in the plaint, while its proviso requires the court to allow amendment to include such a claim at any stage on just terms. A judgment should therefore note whether the alternative relief was pleaded; if it was not, you cannot conjure it, though you may observe that the plaintiff is not without remedy by way of a separate or amended claim. Where you do grant the alternative, fix the quantum and the rate of interest with reasons, and state from what date interest runs, so that the money part of the decree is as executable as the conveyance part would have been.

Drafting the operative decree

The operative portion must be self-executing and unambiguous, because it is the part that is drawn up as the decree under Order XX Rule 6 CPC. A model operative paragraph for a successful plaintiff reads: "The suit is decreed. The defendant is directed to execute and register a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff within ___ from today, on the plaintiff depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs. ___ in this court within ___; in default of such deposit the suit shall stand dismissed; in default of execution by the defendant, the plaintiff shall be entitled to have the sale deed executed through the process of the court. The defendant shall deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Parties shall bear their own costs."

Note the calibrated conditionality: the plaintiff's relief is tied to his own performance (deposit of the balance), reflecting the reciprocity Section 16 demands and the equitable conditioning approved in Nirmala Anand. Fix realistic timelines, deal with possession, and dispose of the earnest money. A decree that leaves either party guessing what to do next is an incomplete judgment.

Common errors that cost marks

First, omitting a distinct issue on readiness and willingness, contrary to V.S. Ramakrishnan; second, treating the 2018 amendment as having abolished all judicial control, when Sections 14 and 16 still gate the remedy; third, ignoring the time-schedule on the comfortable assumption that time is never of the essence in immovable-property contracts, a view the Supreme Court itself questioned in Saradamani Kandappan; fourth, granting specific performance without addressing possession or the fate of the earnest money; and fifth, writing a treatise rather than disposing of the pleaded issues.

A disciplined candidate anchors every paragraph to an issue, cites only what is necessary, and ends each issue with a one-line finding. Revisit the civil judgment writing hub to see how this specific-performance template sits within the broader judgment-writing syllabus, and rehearse the structure until the skeleton is automatic and your time is spent on reasoning, not on remembering the order of headings.