Personal bars to relief
Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with personal bars to relief. Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person-- [(a) who has obtained substituted performance of contract under section 20; The Act came into force on 01 Mar 1964.
Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person--
1[(a) who has obtained substituted performance of contract under section 20; or]
(b) who has become incapable of performing, or violates any essential term of, the contract that on his part remains to be performed, or acts in fraud of the contract, or wilfully acts at variance with, or in subversion of, the relation intended to be established by the contract; or
(c) 2[who fails to 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 of the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.
Explanation.--For the purposes of clause (c),--
(i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court;
(ii) the plaintiff 3[must prove] performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.
Section 16, The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Act 47 of 1963).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
J. P. Builders vs A. Ramadas Rao
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a suit for specific performance of a property sale agreement, the plaintiff must establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform his obligations from the date of contract to the date of decree through conduct, part-payment, and financial capacity. Readiness refers to financial capacity while willingness refers to conduct of the plaintiff. When a contract involves obtaining clearance from a third party (such as a bank) for release of mortgaged property, such obtaining of clearance is an incidental and implied covenant on the vendor's part and does not make the contract contingent or impossible to perform. The equitable doctrine of marshalling under Section 56 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is available to a decree holder in a suit for specific performance to ensure that the mortgagee exhausts its remedy from other properties of the mortgagor before proceeding against the property sold to the subsequent purchaser, provided such application does not prejudice the mortgagee's rights. A pure question of law can be raised for the first time at the appellate stage even if not specifically pleaded at trial, particularly when larger relief was prayed in the plaint.
On this section: Establishes that plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform essential terms of contract from date of contract to date of decree; this is a condition precedent for grant of relief
-
I. S. Sikandar (d) by Lrs. vs K. Subramani
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When parties to a contract for sale of immovable property expressly agree to a specific time for performance of the contract, time becomes the essence of the contract and must be strictly adhered to. Failure to perform within the stipulated time constitutes a material breach which entitles the non-defaulting party to rescind the contract. A suit for specific performance based on a contract that has been validly terminated by the non-defaulting party is not maintainable unless the plaintiff seeks declaratory relief to challenge the termination. Additionally, a plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove through credible documentary evidence and conduct that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract at all material times, including prior to filing the suit and continuing till the date of judgment. The burden of proof lies squarely on the plaintiff under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. When a plaintiff fails to meet this burden, the court cannot exercise its discretionary power under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act to grant specific performance, notwithstanding the equitable considerations involved.
On this section: Section 16(c) makes it mandatory for the plaintiff seeking specific performance to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract at all material times. The Court held that the plaintiff had failed to meet this burden of proof. The plaintiff did not produce documentary evidence of having the balance consideration amount of Rs. 40,000, did not make sincere efforts to obtain necessary permissions, and his conduct showed repeated delays without justification.
-
Balraj Taneja vs Sunil Madan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a defendant fails to file a written statement as required by Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court has discretionary power under Order 8 Rule 10 to either pronounce judgment against the defendant or make such other order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. This discretion cannot be exercised mechanically or punitively. Before the court can proceed to decree a suit under Order 8 Rule 10, particularly in cases like specific performance, the court must: (1) satisfy itself that even if facts in the plaint are treated as admitted due to non-filing of written statement, a judgment can legally be passed in favor of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any fact; (2) ascertain that no disputed questions of fact exist within the plaint itself requiring investigation; (3) ensure that all mandatory legal requirements for the relief sought (such as Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act requiring plaintiff's readiness and willingness) are satisfied; (4) exercise its discretion judicially, considering all circumstances of the case, and not punitively due to procedural default; and (5) write a proper judgment containing concise statement of case, points for determination, decision, and reasons as mandated by Section 2(9) and Order 20 Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. A bare decree without reasoning is a material irregularity. Where the plaint itself contains disputed assertions regarding crucial facts (as where defendant claims certificate was sent but plaintiff denies receipt), these disputed facts cannot be treated as admitted merely due to non-filing of written statement; they must be proved by the plaintiff. The court must be cautious and must not proceed blindly under Order 8 Rule 10.
On this section: Requires plaintiff to plead readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract before specific performance can be decreed; court held this is mandatory requirement that must be satisfied before decree can be passed, and court must satisfy itself of this even if written statement not filed
-
Jaswinder Kaur (now Deceased ) through Her Lrs vs Gurmeet Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Specific performance of a contract cannot be decreed in part without satisfying the mandatory requirements of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. A party seeking specific performance must prove readiness and willingness to perform the entire contract, not merely part of it. Readiness and willingness cannot be inferred merely from part payment or partial performance of consideration. Where a party's inability to perform arises from its own conduct and lack of financial capacity (evidenced by failure to produce financial documents), and where the party has failed to substantiate presence and readiness at the material time, specific performance cannot be granted either wholly or partially. The High Court's authority in a second appeal is limited to examining the legality and perversity of findings recorded by trial and first appellate courts based on evidence; it cannot create a new contract or decree what was not set up by the parties.
On this section: Requires not only averment of readiness and willingness but also proof thereof. The Court emphasized that plaintiffs only pleaded readiness and willingness but utterly failed to prove it through credible evidence.
-
Vasanthi vs Venugopal (d) Thr. Lrs
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person claiming protection of their possession under Section 53A of the Transfer Of Property Act must establish not only the existence of a written contract of sale, part performance through possession and payment, and acts done in furtherance of the contract, but also and crucially, that they have been always and ever ready and willing to perform their part of the contract at all relevant times. Mere passive occupation without taking effective steps to enforce the contract or proving continuous readiness and willingness does not entitle such person to protection under Section 53A. Furthermore, such protection cannot be extended to defeat the rights of a bona fide purchaser for value who has no notice of the contract or the part performance thereof. A registered sale deed obtained in good faith by a bona fide purchaser without knowledge of a prior unregistered agreement of sale confers superior title, and the failure of the earlier claimant to enforce their contractual rights within the period of limitation (read with the failure to prove readiness and willingness) disentitles them to claim statutory protection under Section 53A.
On this section: Bars specific performance against a person who fails to prove readiness and willingness to perform essential contract terms. The Court applied this section in conjunction with Section 53A to hold that respondents could not claim protection as they failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness.
-
Giriyappa vs Kamalamma
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a defendant claims protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act based on alleged part-performance of a sale agreement, the burden lies on the defendant to prove: (1) existence of a written contract signed by the transferor from which terms can be ascertained with reasonable certainty; (2) that the transferee took possession or continued in possession in part-performance of the contract; and (3) that the transferee performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract. If the defendant fails to prove these prerequisites, particularly the execution of the sale agreement and possession in part-performance thereof, the protection under Section 53-A is not available, and the transferor can enforce his rights in the property. The findings of fact by the trial court and appellate court regarding non-proof of the sale agreement and possession, if consistent with the evidence and show no perversity, shall not be disturbed by the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition.
On this section: Personal bars to relief: Court referenced Section 16 regarding requirements for specific performance, including that the plaintiff must aver and prove performance or readiness and willingness to perform essential terms of the contract.
-
H. P. A. International vs Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A contract for sale of property which is contingent on obtaining court sanction for transfer of interests of non-parties (reversioners) is an integrated, indivisible, and inseparable contract. When the essential contingency (court sanction) fails to materialize despite reasonable efforts by the vendor and despite the vendor's implied obligation to seek it within reasonable time, the contract becomes unenforceable. A buyer cannot invoke Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act to enforce partial relief (transfer of life interest alone) when: (a) the contract terms evince clear intention that parties contemplated all-or-nothing transaction; (b) explicit contractual clause (Clause 6) provides for cancellation if sanction not obtained; (c) no stipulation in contract provides for separate transfer of life interest if sanction for reversioners' interests fails; (d) the claim for partial relief is made after unreasonable delay and substantial change of circumstances; (e) reversioners, being non-parties to the contract, cannot be bound by doctrines of estoppel or trusts to give effect to a contract to which they never agreed; and (f) doing so would adversely affect the reversioners' independent interests and create future litigation. Courts cannot grant specific performance on terms not contemplated by the original contract parties, even if buyer attempts to waive the sanctioning clause.
On this section: Referenced in William Graham v. Krishna Chandra Dey regarding court's power to enforce partial relief - held that courts cannot make new contracts not already made by parties themselves.
-
Laxman Tatyaba Kankate vs Taramati Harishchandra Dhatrak
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a plaintiff has proven readiness and willingness to perform her part of a contract for sale of immovable property, has paid earnest money, and the defendant has failed to produce credible evidence of legal restrictions (such as mortgage or statutory prohibitions) that would bar specific performance, and where the defendant has taken advantage of the pendency of proceedings, the court's discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act should be exercised to grant specific performance, particularly when the plaintiff offers consideration substantially higher than the original agreement price, thereby balancing equities between the parties and removing any prejudice to the defendant.
On this section: Plaintiff must aver in plaint and prove readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract; requirement is mandatory and must be demonstrated from institution of suit till culmination into decree
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… To quote this Court:- "So far there being a plea that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract is there in the pleading, we have no hesitation to conclude, that this by itself is not sufficient to hold that the appellants were ready and willing in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. This requires not only such plea but also proof of the same. Now examining the first of the two circumstances, how could mere filing of this suit, after exemption was granted be a circumstance about willingness or readiness of the plaintiff. This at the most could be the desire of the …
-
… on the basis that the transaction is not disputed and only a written statement which is in the nature of formal written statement has been filed by sole defendant (paragraph No.16 of the impugned judgment). 7. In the hearing today, Mr.N.Jayabalan, learned counsel submitted that the readiness and willingness qua Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has not been correctly appreciated by the said trial Court. To be noted, this is one of the points and several points have been raised both in the memorandum of grounds of appeal and support affidavit qua captioned …
-
… Furthermore, there is no requirement of depositing the balance money in the Court at the time of filing of the Suit as per Section 16, Explanation (i) of Specific Relief Act. The testimony of DW2 cannot be believed as he is the broker who is the interested witness and has admitted in his cross-examination that his affidavit of evidence has been prepared by the counsel of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Obviously, brokerage was also paid to him which makes …
Questions about Section 16
What have the courts held on Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act?
J. P. Builders vs A. Ramadas Rao (22 Nov 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Establishes that plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform essential terms of contract from date of contract to date of decree; this is a condition precedent for grant of relief. Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 1999 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Specific Relief Act 16, section 16 Specific Relief Act, section 16 of the Specific Relief Act. People searching for it also type specific relief act 16 c and specific relief act section 16 c. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with J. P. Builders vs A. Ramadas Rao (22 Nov 2010).
What should I read with Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 20 (Substituted performance of contract), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act come into force?
Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, cited as Specific Relief Act 16, came into force on 01 Mar 1964, having been enacted on 13 Dec 1963. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 12. Specific performance of part of contract391 words
- 28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed382 words
- 15. Who may obtain specific performance330 words
- 13. Rights of purchaser or lessee against person with no title or imperfect title309 words
- 26. When instrument may be rectified292 words
- 20. Substituted performance of contract269 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.