The Supreme Court set aside a High Court decree of specific performance of a 2004 land sale agreement, holding that the buyers had not shown continuous readiness and willingness to pay and had taken contradictory legal positions, restoring only a refund of the advance with interest.
Facing a situation like this yourself?
Find a verified, bar-registered lawyer near you — free to search, no obligation.
Find a Lawyer Near Me →"I agreed to sell my land in good faith in 2004, but I have spent over two decades being dragged through courts, accused, and now forced to fight to keep property I never even got fully paid for. I am an old man now, and they still won't let this go."
Moral Universe
Chandran frames himself as an honest seller who was strung along by buyers who never had the money to complete the deal, who tried to quietly re-assign his property to a third party behind his back, and who then dragged his name through a criminal complaint accusing him of cheating and threatening to have him traced by the police.
Emotional Driver
A sense of betrayal and exhaustion — having his integrity questioned through a criminal complaint while genuinely believing he acted honestly by revoking a misused Power of Attorney and terminating an agreement the buyers had already breached.
Objective
To be freed of an agreement he believes was never honoured on the buyers' side, to retain his property, and to have the courts recognize that the buyers cannot simultaneously accuse him of cheating and still demand he hand over the land.
Blind Spots
The narrative understates the disputed factual questions over exactly how much money was actually received (₹60 lakh versus ₹85 lakh) and does not fully grapple with the finding that his own termination communications contained factual inaccuracies about dates.
Inherent Tensions
- —The seller wants finality and to keep the property, while the underlying facts show he did receive a substantial advance that the courts agreed must be accounted for.
- —He revoked the buyers' Power of Attorney citing misuse, yet was himself found to have miscommunicated a key date affecting the sixty-day completion clock.
- —He seeks to portray the buyers' criminal complaint as bad faith, while his own criminal complaint against them preceded and arguably provoked theirs.