As per case facts, the appellants (original defendants) entered into a sale agreement with the first respondent (original plaintiff) but later cancelled a Power of Attorney and claimed the respondent ... delayed payment. The respondent asserted readiness and willingness, but intervening factors like a partition suit with an injunction and a sale of the property by family members of the appellants to a third party led to litigation, which the respondent actively pursued. The trial court decreed specific performance, prompting this appeal to the High Court by the defendants. The question arose whether specific performance should be granted despite the alleged delay and multiple litigations, and if the respondent had proved readiness and willingness. Finally, the High Court found that the respondent's delay was justified by the ongoing litigation and the appellants' failure to disclose the injunction and subsequent transactions. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, dismissing the appeal and upholding the specific performance decree, finding no reason for interference.