By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 12 September 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice
About this article: A general explainer prepared by S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors on a recurring type of dispute. It does not report a specific judgment or order, names no parties and gives no case citation, so it should not be cited as authority. Law and practice change; please verify against the current statute and primary sources before relying on it.
A buyer who sues for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property must show that they have performed or have always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract, usually including payment of the balance price. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 makes this a requirement of relief, and it is often the most contested issue.
Courts look at the whole of the plaintiff's conduct. Relevant factors include whether the plaintiff sought performance through notices and correspondence, whether funds were available, whether the plaintiff offered to deposit the balance in court and whether anything done was inconsistent with an intention to complete. A technical gap in communication, taken alone, is not usually treated as fatal where overall conduct shows a continuing willingness, but a plaintiff who does not plead and prove the point fails.
The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 changed the law so that specific performance is no longer a discretionary remedy in the old sense and is to be granted subject to the statutory exceptions. The limitation period for such suits is three years from the date fixed for performance or, if none, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.