The Plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as well as the Defendant's failure to prove that the sale agreement was fabricated, were crucial in the court's decision to confirm the relief of specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), is filed by the Appellant/Defendant challenging the decree and Judgment dated 26.09.2016 in O.S. No.27 of 2010 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Srikakulam (for short, 'the trial court').

2. Respondent is the Plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S. No.27 of 2010 seeking Specific Performance of agreement of sale dated 25.05.2009, directing the Defendant to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff regarding the suit schedule property by receiving the balance sale consideration amount.

3. Referring to the parties hereinafter as arrayed in the suit is expedient to mitigate potential confusion and better comprehend the case.

4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows:

(a) The Defendant, possessing full ownership of the schedule property, agreed to sell it to the Plaintiff at Rs.11,000/- per cent. The agreement was formalized on 25.05.2009, with the Defendant receiving an advance payment of Rs.12,00,000/- on the same day. The agreement, executed at the Defendant's residence in the presence of witnesses and a scribe, included a condition for executing the sale deed within nine (9) months from the agreement date. Furthermore, Defendant committed to removing a shed on the schedule property. Defendant provided Plaintiff with the original sale deed dated 19.01.1999, through which she acquired the schedule property, along with the adjacent property, and relevant proceedings dated 14.11.2008 of Tahsildar, Etcherla, issued in her name, along with a sketch.

(b) The Plaintiff consistently demonstrates readiness and willingness to fulfil his contractual obligations, while the Defendant deliberately avoids completing the registration of the sale deed. Following Defendant's failure to execute the registered sale deed within the stipulated timeframe, Plaintiff issued a legal notice on 28.04.2010, requiring Defendant to manage the sale deed upon receipt of the remaining sale consideration within seven days. Although Defendant received the notice on 01.05.2010, she neither responded nor executed the registered sale deed. She tried to alienate the property to her relatives to create an assortment of litigation.

5. (a) In her written statement, the Defendant refuted most of the assertions made in the plaint. She contested the accuracy of her stated address, clarifying that she resides separately from her husband, Bogi Anjaneyulu, due to marital differences and currently lives with her elder son, Bogi Ananda Rao, at Dabalvari Street, Amadalavalasa. The Defendant disclosed that the original sale deed and related documents are in the possession of her husband, who allegedly obtained her signatures on blank white papers, conquest papers, and stamp papers, misleading her into believing they were required for business and court purposes. Upon discovering her husband's manipulation and the filing of petitions in her name with the aforementioned blank papers containing her signatures, she submitted an affidavit before the Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Srikakulam, in O.S. No.5 of 2003, exposing the fraud perpetrated by her husband. Defendant asserted that she did not enter into the purported suit agreement dated 25.05.2009 nor provide any consideration.

(b) Additionally, Defendant asserts that the property outlined in the plaint schedule is her exclusive possession, acquired with her Stridhana. She contended that she had previously entered into an agreement of sale with Nallamilli Srinivasa Reddy on 03.04.2007 at Rs.15,000/- per cent, having received an advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, and had informed both her husband and the Plaintiff about this arrangement. Despite Srinivasa Reddy's request to finalize the sale deed by settling the outstanding consideration, the Defendant claimed to be hindered, as her husband retained th