Rising Property Prices Make Timelines Crucial In Property Deals: Delhi High Court Refuses To Order Specific Performance
The Delhi High Court, while refusing to grant specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell, observed that rising property prices make adherence to timelines crucial in property transactions.“The commercial reality governing the transactions relating to immovable property in metropolitan cities such as Delhi, where the property values are subject to steady and significant escalation,...
The Delhi High Court, while refusing to grant specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell, observed that rising property prices make adherence to timelines crucial in property transactions.
“The commercial reality governing the transactions relating to immovable property in metropolitan cities such as Delhi, where the property values are subject to steady and significant escalation, is that time assumes critical importance in the performance of contractual obligations,” said a division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar.
The Court made the observation while dismissing an appeal challenging the rejection of a plaint seeking specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to sell a property in the city's Vasant Vihar area.
The plaint had earlier been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for lack of a cause of action and failure to establish readiness and willingness under the Specific Relief Act.
The Court relied on K.S. Vidyanadam & Ors. v. Vairavan, (1997) where the Supreme Court emphasized on the constant and continuous rise in the values of urban properties — fuelled by large-scale migration of people from rural areas to urban centres and by inflation.
On facts, the Court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate the existence of a concluded and enforceable agreement to sell, noting that the material on record—including WhatsApp communications—indicated that negotiations were still ongoing and had not culminated in a binding contract.
“A perusal of the aforesaid WhatsApp chats makes it abundantly clear that the parties were still in process of negotiating and finalizing the terms of a prospective Agreement to Sell even till 16.11.2023. Moreover, the communications do not reveal that any prior oral Agreement to Sell had already been concluded, which was being reduced into writing. On the contrary, the chats reveal that the parties were still engaged in the process of preparing and formulating the Agreement to Sell itself.”
It was further observed that the appellant had not established continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, including lack of proof of financial capacity to pay the agreed consideration.
“Furthermore, admittedly in the present case, the Appellant has even got his earnest money back. In such circumstances, granting specific performance would amount to the Court creating a contract for the parties, which is impermissible in law,” the Court added and dismissed the appeal.
Appearance: Mr. Viraj Datar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Samar Singh Kachwaha, Ms.Shivangi Nanda, Mr. Arsh Rampal and Mr. Srikant Singh, Advs for Appellant; Mr. Manish Kaushik, Mr. Vikas Ashwani, Mr. Mainak Sarkar and Ms.Aparna Kushwah, Advs for Respondent
Case title: Pradeep Batra v. Kuldip Singh Verma
Case no.: RFA(OS) 4/2026