The seller signed an agreement to sell with me and then sold the same property to someone else. Can I still get a decree?

Usually, yes. Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 allows the agreement to be enforced against any person who claims under the seller by a title arising after your contract. The one person that clause protects is a transferee for value who paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract. So the second buyer is joined as a defendant, and in suits of this kind before the Jodhpur civil courts the evidence ends up centring on his good faith and notice: who was in possession when he bought, how openly the earnest money was paid, and what enquiry he made before parting with his money.

Do I have to deposit the balance sale price in court to show that I was ready to pay?

Not unless the court directs it. Explanation (i) to Section 16(c) says that where a contract involves payment of money, the plaintiff need not actually tender it to the defendant or deposit it in court except when so directed by the court. What Section 16(c) does require is proof that you have performed, or have always been ready and willing to perform, your part of the contract. The 2018 amendment dropped the word 'aver' from the clause, but a plaint silent on readiness hands the defendant an easy point, so it is still pleaded, and the evidence should show the money was within reach throughout: bank statements, a loan sanction, the correspondence.

Apart from specific performance, what else should the plaint ask for?

Three things, because the court cannot give them unless they are claimed. Section 22(1)(a) allows a claim for possession, or partition and separate possession, in addition to performance; Section 22(1)(b) allows a claim for refund of the earnest money or deposit in case specific performance is refused; and Section 21 allows compensation for the breach, which Section 21(5) says cannot be awarded unless claimed in the plaint. Both sections permit the plaint to be amended at any stage of the proceeding. The reason to get it right at filing is Section 24: once a suit for specific performance is dismissed, the plaintiff cannot bring a fresh suit for compensation for that breach.

How long do I have to file a suit for specific performance?

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 gives three years. Time runs from the date fixed for performance or, if no date is fixed, from when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. Many agreements to sell in Rajasthan fix no calendar date at all, and then the second limb governs. That makes the date of refusal the real contest on limitation, because the seller will usually say refusal came earlier than the buyer does. A written refusal, or a legal notice and the reply to it, is often what fixes that date on the record.

How long does a specific performance suit take to be decided?

Section 20C, which came in with the 2018 amendment, directs that a suit under the Specific Relief Act be disposed of within twelve months from the date of service of summons on the defendant. The court may extend that period, but only by not more than six months in aggregate and only after recording its reasons in writing. It is a statutory direction to the court, not a promise of a date, but it is worth having on the record: when adjournments start to accumulate, the date of service and Section 20C can be placed before the court.

Specific Performance of Contracts: When Can You Force a Sale?

Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels a defaulting party to perform their contractual obligations rather than merely paying damages for breach. In India, the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) was fundamentally amended in 2018. The most significant change: specific performance of contracts — especially for immovable property — is now the general rule rather than a discretionary remedy. Pre-2018, courts could refuse specific performance and award damages instead; post-2018, courts must decree specific performance unless the contract falls within the specific exceptions in Section 14 SRA.

What Section 10 actually says after 2018: the amendment (Act 18 of 2018, s. 3, w.e.f. 1 October 2018) deleted the old adequacy tests altogether and substituted one sentence: the specific performance of a contract "shall be enforced by the court", subject only to Section 11(2), Section 14 and Section 16. The two familiar limbs that used to open this section, no standard for measuring the damage and money being no adequate relief, are simply no longer in the statute. In an agreement-to-sell suit before a Jodhpur civil court that changes who has to persuade whom: the buyer no longer argues that damages would be a poor substitute for the plot, and the seller must bring his case within one of the three saving provisions or face a decree.

Non-enforceable contracts (Section 14, as substituted in 2018): the list is now four clauses and no more. (a) Where the party suing has already obtained substituted performance under Section 20. (b) A contract whose performance involves a continuous duty that the court cannot supervise. (c) A contract so dependent on the personal qualifications of the parties that the court cannot enforce its material terms. (d) A contract which is in its nature determinable. Note what has gone: "compensation in money is an adequate relief", "contracts running into minute detail" and "terms uncertain or inequitable" are not grounds of refusal any longer. Written statements in this district still plead them in the old form, and the answer is to put the substituted section on record and ask which of its four clauses is being invoked.

Readiness and willingness, and what Section 16(c) now requires: the clause was recast in 2018 so that relief cannot be enforced in favour of a person "who fails to prove" that he has performed, or has always been ready and willing to perform, the essential terms on his part; Explanation (ii) adds that the plaintiff "must prove" it. The provision that decides most agreement-to-sell trials is Explanation (i): where the contract involves payment of money, the buyer is not required to actually tender the balance to the seller or deposit it in court unless the court directs him to. So the seller's standard plea that the buyer "never brought the money" is not by itself an answer. What the buyer has to establish, in the pleadings first and then in the evidence, is capacity and conduct running through the whole period, not on one date.

Limitation, and where substituted performance really sits: the suit is governed by Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which gives three years from the date fixed for performance or, where no date is fixed, from when the plaintiff has notice that performance has been refused. Substituted performance is Section 20, not Section 20A; Section 20A is a different provision altogether, barring injunctions that would delay an infrastructure project listed in the Schedule. Section 20 requires a written notice of not less than thirty days calling upon the party in breach to perform. Section 20(3) is the trap for a client who has already gone ahead: once he has actually had the contract performed through a third party or his own agency, he cannot afterwards claim specific performance, though Section 20(4) leaves his claim for compensation intact. Section 20C separately directs that a suit under the Act be disposed of within twelve months from service of summons, extendable by not more than six months for reasons recorded in writing.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance on your matter, please consult a qualified advocate.