Topic
Karnataka High Court rules that joint development agreements lacking precise specifications fail the 'readiness and willingness' test under Section 14(3)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, rendering them unenforceable. Developers risk forfeiture of security deposits if terms are not clearly defined, reinforcing strict compliance for contract enforcement.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that in suits for specific performance, a plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform must be demonstrated not just at filing, but continuously from the date of contract execution through to the final decree. This sets a strict evidentiary standard for buyers seeking equitable relief, especially in property disputes where delays or inconsistent conduct can derail recovery.
Andhra Pradesh High Court clarifies burden of proof in specific performance cases, emphasizing defendant's conduct and failure to challenge agreement promptly.
Kerala High Court holds that oral agreements extending limitation period for specific performance can be considered at trial, overturning plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.