IMPORTANT POINT
The plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract, as required by Sec. 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, influenced the Court's decision to set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the lower Courts.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Second Appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dtd. 31/10/2022 passed in A.S.No.40 of 2015 on the file of X Additional District Judge, Narsapur, confirming the decree and judgment dtd. 6/4/2018 passed in O.S No.125 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram.

2. The appellant herein is the 2nd defendant, the 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents No.2 to 8 are the legal heirs of the 1st defendant in the suit. Originally the suit in O.S No.125 of 2011 was filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram (for short "the trial Court) by the 1st respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of sale agreement dtd. 22/3/2011.

3. For convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Additional District Judge, Narsapuram (for short "the first appellate Court") in A.S.No.40 of 2015.

4. The 1st defendant is the absolute owner of 94.2 square yards of site in the 9th ward (presently 16th ward), Shahakarpeta, Palakol i.e., plaint schedule property. She purchased the same under a registered sale deed dtd. 18/6/1990 and she offered to sell it to the plaintiff for Rs.7,53,778.00. The plaintiff paid Rs.5,00,000.00 towards advance to the 1st defendant on condition that the balance sale consideration should be paid on or before 9/5/2011, and in case of default, the plaintiff has to pay interest @ 2% p.m. Further, in case of default by 1st defendant, she has to pay interest at the same rate on the advance amount and the interest shall be deducted out of the balance consideration. The plaintiff issued registered notice 20/4/2011 demanding the 1st defendant to receive the balance consideration of Rs.2,53,778.00 and execute registered sale deed on or before 9/5/2011. During pendency of the said suit, the 1st defendant executed a registered sale deed dtd. 5/5/2011 in favour of the 2nd defendant in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. The sale deed will not bind the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant also executed registered sale deed. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit before the trial Court.

5. The 1st defendant filed written statement and denied all the averments made in the plaint. It is stated that there is long standing business rivalry between the plaintiff and the husband of 1st defendant and agreement might have been, therefore fabricated by forging the signatures of 1st defendant in collusion with his associates and followers. It is also stated that the 1st defendant issued a reply notice dtd. 28/4/2011 and the same was received by the plaintiff. Further, the 1st defendant reserves right to take criminal action against the plaintiff under Ss. 468 and 420 IPC. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. The 2nd defendant also filed written statement and denied the plaint averments and alleged what 1st defendant did in her written statement. It is stated that he is a bona fide purchaser for consideration. The suit is bad for misjoinder of parties. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

7. On the impleadment of 2nd defendant, 1st defendant filed additional written statement pleading that 2nd defendant is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration.

8. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the agreement of sale dtd. 22/3/2011 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

9. Thereafter, an additional issue was also framed after the impleadment of 2nd defendant:

1. Whether the 2nd defendant is a bona fide purchaser for consideration?

10. During course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW.1, the first attestor of the agreement was examined as PW.2; PW.3 was also examined but did not appear for cross examination and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

11. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the tr