Court caseAIR 1967 SC 868

The defendants agreed to sell land to the plaintiff, the sale to be completed by a fixed date, and received an advance. The date was extended more than once. The plaintiff did not pay the balance and complete, and eventually sued for specific performance. The defendants contended that time was of the essence and that the plaintiff had never been ready and willing to perform.

The Supreme Court (Shah J) held that in a contract for the sale of immovable property the mere fixing of a date for completion does not make time of the essence; the intention must appear from the express terms, the nature of the property and the surrounding circumstances. Even so, specific performance is a discretionary equitable relief, and the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness from the date of the contract to the hearing. The plaintiff had not shown that he had the money or any real intention of completing, and specific performance was refused.