Equitable Enhancement of Consideration in Specific Performance:
A Detailed Commentary on Krishan Gopal v. Gurmeet Kaur (Dead) through LRs., 2025 INSC 850

1. Introduction

On 15 July 2025 the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in Krishan Gopal v. Gurmeet Kaur (Dead) through LRs. (2025 INSC 850) that re-casts the contours of equitable relief in suits for specific performance. The judgment not only revisits the established principles on readiness-and-willingness and lis pendens, but, more importantly, for the first time explicitly authorises an “equitable enhancement” of the contractual price as a middle path between granting and refusing specific performance where substantial time-lapse and escalation of land value co-exist.

The litigation revolved around 73 Kanals 12 Marlas (≈9 acres) of agricultural land in Hoshiarpur, Punjab. Krishan Gopal (vendor/appellant) agreed on 8 October 2001 to sell the land to Gurmeet Kaur and her sons (vendees/respondents) for ₹10,00,000, receiving ₹1,00,000 earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed by 31 January 2002. When the transaction did not fructify, the vendees sued for specific performance (Suit No. 508/2002). After concurrent findings in their favour by the trial court, first appellate court, and High Court, the matter reached the Supreme Court along with objections raised by subsequent transferees pendente lite claiming under Krishan Gopal.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Supreme Court affirmed the decree for specific performance in favour of the original vendees.
• It declared four subsequent sale deeds (two of 29 May 2002 and two of 4 April 2012) void ab initio as transfers hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
• Invoking its equitable jurisdiction, the Court directed the vendees to deposit an additional ₹25,00,000, over and above the contractual balance of ₹9,00,000 (already deposited), as a condition precedent for execution—ushering in the doctrine of “equitable enhancement of consideration.”
• The Registry was ordered to communicate the judgment to the Sub-Registrar for rectification of records under Section 31(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
• Status-quo orders were vacated; parties were left to bear their own costs.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

1. Nathulal v. Phoolchand, (1969) 3 SCC 120 – readiness & willingness need not be demonstrated by physical production of money; financial capacity may be inferred.
2. Sukhbir Singh v. Brij Pal Singh, (1997) 2 SCC 200 – conduct is crucial for proving readiness & willingness.
3. His Holiness Acharya Swami Ganesh Dassji v. Sita Ram Thapar, (1996) 4 SCC 526, and Bibi Jaibunisha v. Jagdish Pandit, (1997) 4 SCC 481 – readiness & willingness gleaned from overall conduct.
4. Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal, (1982) 1 SCC 525 – court may grant possession under S. 22 SRA even if not explicitly prayed.
5. Kanshi Ram v. Om Prakash Jawal, (1996) 4 SCC 593, and Gobind Ram v. Gian Chand, (2000) 7 SCC 548 – price‐rise alone is no ground to refuse specific performance.

The Court relied on these authorities to: (a) uphold the concurrent findings on readiness & willingness; (b) legitimise the trial court’s grant of possession despite no explicit prayer; and (c) assert that price escalation cannot, per se, defeat specific performance—while simultaneously carving out room for equitable adjustment in the monetary terms.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The judgment proceeds in three logical stages:

1. Readiness & Willingness. The plaintiffs’ bank accounts, property holdings and earnest steps were sufficient proof; physical tender of ₹9 lakh was unnecessary (Nathulal line).
2. Effect of Lis Pendens. Transfers by Krishan Gopal (29 May 2002) and by Arun Kalia (4 April 2012) occurred after institution of Suit No. 508/2002 (20 April 2002) and were void against the decree holders under Section 52 TPA. Hence, objections by transferees were rightly dismissed.
3. Equitable Enhancement. Noting (a) the extensive acreage, (b) the long passage of time (2001–2025), and (c) the “astronomical rise” in prices, the Court balanced equities by:

   Confirming specific performance but ordering an extra ₹25 lakh payable to the vendor in addition to the contractual price.

   This step, while preserving the sanctity of the original bargain, compensates the vendor for delay and neutralises any charge of unjust enrichment.

3.3 Impact on Future Jurisprudence

• New Equitable Tool. Courts now have an articulated power to enhance consideration instead of outright refusing specific performance when delay and escalation coexist.
• Guidance for Transferees Pendente Lite. The judgment reaffirms that such transferees have extremely tenuous standing and cannot defeat an existing decree by alleging collusion without solid proof.
• Procedural Economy. Objections under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC need not always result in framing of issues; an executing court may summarily reject them if they are prima facie groundless.
• Section 22 SRA Flexibility. The decision consolidates the view that possession can be granted even absent a specific plea, curbing hyper-technical objections.
• Risk Management. Vendors and purchasers must now anticipate that delay‐related price escalation might be judicially redistributed through additional consideration rather than derail the contract.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Specific Performance

A court order directing a party to a contract to perform his/her part (e.g., execute a sale deed) instead of merely paying damages.

Readiness & Willingness

Legal shorthand for the purchaser’s continuous financial and bona-fide preparedness to complete the transaction.

Doctrine of Lis Pendens (Section 52 TPA)

Any transfer of property during the pendency of litigation affecting that property is subject to the eventual outcome of the case.

Order XXI Rule 97 CPC

Provides for resistance or obstruction to delivery of possession in execution proceedings and the manner of adjudication.

Section 22 Specific Relief Act, 1963

Allows a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance to also claim possession, partition, or refund of earnest money.

Equitable Enhancement of Consideration

Newly articulated power allowing courts to increase the sale price payable under a decree to balance equities when long delay and price rise are proved.

5. Conclusion

Krishan Gopal v. Gurmeet Kaur cements several established doctrines but, more importantly, crafts a pragmatic remedy—“equitable enhancement of consideration”—which bridges the gap between rigid enforcement of outdated prices and unjust enrichment from skyrocketing land values.

Key takeaways include:

• Price escalation, though insufficient to deny specific performance, can justify additional payment to the vendor.
• Transfers pendente lite remain perilous and easily avoidable with basic due-diligence.
• Courts may grant possession even if inadvertently omitted from the pleadings.
• Executing Courts may summarily reject obstructive objections where collusion or fraud is unsubstantiated.

The ruling is likely to influence future negotiations and litigation strategy in land transactions by foregrounding the possibility of equitable price adjustment rather than nullification of decades-old contracts. It strikes a fine balance between contractual sanctity and economic reality—heralding a nuanced phase in specific performance jurisprudence.