The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, as well as the fulfillment of the terms of the agreement for sale, were crucial in the court's decision. The court also emphasized that the proposed evidence for non-maintainability did not affect the rights and obligations of the parties.

Headnote:
Specific Performance - Agreement for Sale - Section 12(3), Section 17 of Specific Relief Act - The court found that the plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and the defendant had received the payments without objection. The court also dismissed the appellant's argument of non-maintainability of the suit based on Section 12(3) and Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act. The court held that the proposed evidence for non-maintainability did not affect the rights and obligations of the parties and dismissed the application for additional evidence. The court also rejected the appellant's argument of cancellation of the agreement for sale. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the trial court was confirmed, directing the execution of the sale deed by the appellant and respondent No.2 in favor of the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The defendant, who had received payments from the plaintiff, contested the suit, alleging non-compliance with the terms of the agreement and lack of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff had fulfilled the terms of the contract and was ready and willing to perform his part.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and the defendant had received the payments without objection. The court also dismissed the appellant's argument of non-maintainability of the suit based on Section 12(3) and Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act. The court held that the proposed evidence for non-maintainability did not affect the rights and obligations of the parties and dismissed the application for additional evidence. The court also rejected the appellant's argument of cancellation of the agreement for sale.
Issues: 1. Compliance with the terms of the agreement for sale by the plaintiff. 2. Plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. 3. Non-maintainability of the suit based on Section 12(3) and Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act. 4. Cancellation of the agreement for sale.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff had fulfilled the terms of the contract and was ready and willing to perform his part. The court also dismissed the appellant's argument of non-maintainability of the suit based on Section 12(3) and Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act, and rejected the argument of cancellation of the agreement for sale.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the trial court was confirmed, directing the execution of the sale deed by the appellant and respondent No.2 in favor of the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT :

Defendant No.1 in the suit filed this first appeal under section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 CPC assailing the judgement dated 24.03.2017 of learned II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni in O.S.No.13 of 2011.

2. Respondent No.1 in this appeal is the plaintiff in the suit and respondent No.2 in this appeal is defendant No.2 in the suit.

3. About AC.1.20 1/2 cents in Survey No.589A and 589B/2 situated in Yemmiganur of Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh is shown in the plaint schedule. Plaint schedule further described that the above land consisted of various plots of different dimensions. All together 21 plots situated within the extent of land. Originally, this land belonged to Sri K.Rajarao by virtue of registered sale deed dated 25.02.2006. He died thereafter. His property was succeeded by his son Sri K.Nagendrda prasad and Sri K.Venkataramana. Sri K.Venkataramana by a sworn affidavit dated 14.06.2006 authorized, out of his full consent, his brother Sri.K Nagendra Prasad to sell this property or to enter into an agreement for sale and receive the sale proceeds and register the land in favour of the vendors and enjoy the benefits thereof. Thereafter the said Sri K.Nagendra Prasad executed an agreement for sale deed dated 18.10.2008 in favor of Sri Bangi Prasad whereunder he agreed to sell the property. Various time stipulations are mentioned in the agreement with reference to payment of sale consideration. It is in the context of above undisputed facts Sri Bangi Prasad who intended to purchase the property filed O.S.No.13 of 2011 as against the executant of the agreement Sri K.Nagendra Prasad and his brother Sri K.Venkataramana showing them as defendant Nos.1and 2. Plaint averred all the particulars of payments and exchange of notices that occurred between plaintiff and defendant No.1 stating that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract but defendant No.1 refused to perform his part of the contract. Therefore, plaintiff laid the suit with the following prayers:

1. For specific performance of the contract directing the defendants to execute a sale deed in respect of plaint schedule mentioned property by duly registering the same and also for delivery of possession of the same to the plaintiff and in case the defendants fail to do so, the same may be performed through process of Court.

For a decree for Rs.24,40,125-00 with Court costs and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of plaint till realization of the amount by creating a charge over the plaint schedule mentioned property.

2. For costs of the suit and

3. For such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

The suit was contested by Sri K.Nagendra Prasad and the suit was not contested by Sri K.Venkataramana. Defendant No.1/Sri K.Nagendra Prasad in his written statement denied the plaint mentioned allegations. It is stated that the various payments alleged to have been made by the plaintiff to him were not paid by the plaintiff and they were paid by the broker Sri V.Sreeramulu and that the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract within the time limits fixed in the agreement for sale. The relative of plaintiff Sri S.Sivasankarappa is behind this litigation .The payments alleged in the plaint were also made by the said Sivasankarappa. Plaintiff has not been ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the suit is barred by limitation. For those reasons, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

Learned Additional District Judge on considering the material on record and on hearing both sides settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the agreement of sale dated 18.10.2008 is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of contract directing defendants to execute registered sale deed in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 18.10.2008?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs