As per case facts, the plaintiff filed a civil suit for specific performance of a contract to sell agricultural land, claiming to have paid the full consideration and received possession. ... The defendant denied these claims, asserting that only earnest money was paid, possession was not delivered, the plaintiff failed to perform their part within the stipulated time leading to automatic cancellation of the agreement, and the suit was time-barred. The defendant appealed the trial court's decision, which decreed specific performance. The question arose whether the plaintiff was genuinely ready and willing to perform their contractual obligations, whether the entire sale consideration was paid, and if the suit was barred by delay and limitation, especially regarding the transfer of possession. Finally, the trial court correctly found that the plaintiff had paid the entire sale consideration, was always ready and willing to perform the contract, and the suit was not barred by limitation. This appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment. The High Court further clarified that the relief of possession is inherent in a decree for specific performance of an immovable property contract, even if not explicitly requested in the plaint, making the plaintiff entitled to possession.