The court affirmed that readiness to perform a contract can be inferred from conduct, and subsequent transactions during litigation are void under the doctrine of lis pendens.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR, J.

1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 23476 of 2016.

2. These appeals pertain to an extent of agricultural land admeasuring 73 Kanals 12 Marlas, i.e. over 9 acres, comprised in Khewat Khatauni Nos. 75/102, 145/275, 268/414 and Khasra Nos. 106/2(9K-12M), 3(8K), 4(8K), 5(8K), 107/1(8K), 2(8K), 9(8K), 10(8K) and 11(8K) situated in Mauja Dada Hadbast No. 496, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. This land (hereinafter ‘the suit land’) belonged to Krishan Gopal, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2849 of 2015. He entered into Agreement to Sell dated 08.10.2001 with Gurmeet Kaur and her two sons, Arvinder Singh and Kiranjit Singh. Thereunder, Krishan Gopal agreed to sell the suit land to them for a total consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was received by Krishan Gopal as earnest money and he undertook to execute a sale deed in their favour by 31.01.2002, after receiving the balance consideration of Rs. 9,00,000/-. The Agreement also contained the recital that Krishan Gopal, before execution of the sale deed, would obtain the possession of the suit land to the satisfaction of Gurmeet Kaur and her sons and hand over possession to them at the time of execution of the sale deed. This recital clearly implied that the possession of the suit land was not with Krishan Gopal at that time.

3. Thereafter, Gurmeet Kaur and her sons, Arvinder Singh and Kiranjit Singh, instituted Suit No. 508 of 20.04.2002 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hoshiarpur, seeking specific performance of the aforestated Agreement to Sell dated 08.10.2001. In their suit plaint, they claimed that they were put in possession of the suit land by Krishan Gopal in November, 2001 and had spent about Rs. 8,00,000/- to make the land cultivable and fit for agriculture. They asserted that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract by paying the remaining sale consideration to Krishan Gopal and had approached him on 25.01.2002 in that regard but he did not turn up on 31.01.2002 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hoshiarpur, to execute and register the sale deed in their favour. They, accordingly, prayed for a decree for the specific performance of the suit agreement by directing Krishan Gopal to execute and register the sale deed in their favour. They also sought a consequential permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with their peaceful possession over the suit land. In the alternative, they prayed for a decree for recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/- in their favour along with costs.

4. In his written statement, Krishan Gopal admitted the execution of the Agreement to Sell dated 08.10.2001 but contested the readiness and willingness on the part of Gurmeet Kaur and her sons to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 9,00,000/-. He claimed that, as they had failed to pay the amount prior to 31.01.2002, he got issued legal notice dated 11.03.2002 calling upon them to do so and get the sale deed executed and registered within 15 days. He asserted that they intentionally did not accept the said notice and chose to file the suit. He, accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the suit. Notably, this written statement was filed in December, 2002.

5. Gurmeet Kaur and her sons, the plaintiffs, examined three witnesses, including Arvinder Singh, plaintiff No. 1, and adduced documentary evidence. Krishan Gopal, the defendant, examined four witnesses, including himself, and he also marked documents in evidence.

6. By judgment dated 21.10.2008, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hoshiarpur, decreed the suit. Therein, she opined that the readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs was to be seen from the evidence adduced and it was not necessary for them to produce the balance sale consideration as their financial position was shown to be quite sound and they had sufficient balances in their bank accounts, as evidenced by their exhibited statements of accounts. Krishan Gopal’s inconsistent stands abo