Point of Law: Merely because, defendant admits execution of agreement, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance unless he establishes readiness and willingness, financial capacity etc.

JUDGMENT :

Unsuccessful plaintiff filed the above appeal, assailing the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2004 passed in O.S.No.93 of 1993 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties to this appeal are referred to as they were arrayed in suit.

3. The averments in plaint, in brief, are that the defendant/owner of the suit schedule property offered to sell the same; that the bargain was settled for a sum of Rs.4,30,500/-; that on 21.04.1990, the defendant executed agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and received an amount of Rs.20,500/- as advance; that the balance sale consideration is to be paid by 15.08.1990 and the defendant shall execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee; that if for any reason, the plaintiff fails to pay the balance sale consideration and obtain sale deed by 15.08.1990, the balance sale consideration payable shall carry 24% per annum; that if the defendant fails to perform his part of contract, the defendant shall be liable for legal consequences; that the property is to be delivered on the date of execution of sale deed; that the plaintiff made part payment of Rs.40,000/- on 28.04.1990 out of balance sale consideration of Rs.4,10,000/- and the defendant endorsed on reverse side of the agreement and it was attested by the husband of the defendant; that on 15.06.1990, the plaintiff paid part payment of Rs.20,000/- and the same was endorsed on the reverse side of the agreement; that plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and has been demanding the defendant and her son to execute sale deed; that the son of the defendant requested the plaintiff to exclude Ac.0-10 cents on Eastern side of the property mentioned in the agreement of sale, for personal use of the family, but the said proposal was not accepted by the plaintiff; that in the meantime husband of the defendant died; that the defendant left to Bhilai and plaintiff was unable to contact the defendant; that the defendant and her son postponed execution of sale deed and the delay was occurred due to the latches on the part of the defendant; that the defendant has to get certificate from income tax authorities; that the defendant is guilty of latches; that the defendant got issued legal notice through her Advocate on 28.01.1993 with false allegations, for which, reply notice, dated 20.06.1993 was issued by the plaintiff; that the defendant again sent rejoinder with all false allegations contending that the plaintiff was not ready with balance of sale consideration; that the defendant has no manner of right to cancel the agreement and hence filed the suit seeking specific performance of agreement or an alternative relief of refunding the advance consideration with interest at 24% per annum.-

4. The defendant filed written statement and contended inter alia that the suit schedule property is situated at the outskirts of Bhimavaram in China Amiram village abutting Juvvalapalem road towards South and the said area is proposed to be included within the limits of Bhimavaram Municipality; that the value of the lands in the vicinity have been increasing rapidly; that the defendant put up the suit schedule property for sale; that the plaintiff bargained with the defendant for purchasing the property for sale consideration of Rs.4,30,000/-; that as per terms of agreement of sale, plaintiff should pay balance sale consideration by 15.08.1990; that the plaintiff was never ready to perform his part of contract and has not made ready the balance sale consideration; that the defendant demanded plaintiff through her husband and son to pay the balance sale consideration, but the plaintiff neither made the balance sale consideration ready nor came forward to obtain sale deed; that the averment that defendant’s son requested the plaintiff to exclude Ac.00-10 cents is not true and correct; that the husband of the defendant died on 27.09.1990 and the defendant is living w