As per case facts, the appellant, the property owner, entered into a sale agreement with the respondent, who paid significant advance amounts. An additional oral agreement was made for more ... property with further payment. However, the appellant later refused to proceed with the sale and cancelled the agreement, leading the respondent to file a suit for specific performance. The question arose regarding the maintainability of the specific performance suit without explicitly seeking a declaration against the agreement's termination, and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' concurrent findings. It held that the suit for specific performance was maintainable, especially since the objection to maintainability was not raised at earlier stages. The Court also found that the plaintiff consistently demonstrated readiness and willingness to fulfill her contractual obligations, as evidenced by substantial payments and arrangements for the remaining amount, while the defendant was the one in breach.