Court case(1994) 4 SCC 18

The dispute arose from an agreement for the sale of a house. The purchaser sued for specific performance, averring readiness and willingness to perform. The vendor denied that the purchaser had ever been in a position to pay the balance price or had taken any step towards completion within the agreed time, and the question before the Supreme Court was whether the statutory condition in s. 16(c) had been satisfied.

The Supreme Court held that s. 16(c) makes continuous readiness and willingness a condition precedent to the decree. The plaintiff must plead it and must prove it by his conduct from the date of the agreement to the date of the decree; 'readiness' refers to his capacity, including the financial means, to carry out his part, and 'willingness' to his conduct and intention as shown by the steps he took. A mere averment is not enough, and a plaintiff who has not shown that he had, or could arrange, the money and who let the time pass without any demand fails the test. The court decided the appeal on this footing.