IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.

JUDGMENT :

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short “the C.P.C.”], is filed by the Appellants/Defendant Nos.3 to 7, challenging the decree and Judgment, dated 29.10.1997 in O.S.No.173 of 1990 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nellore [for short ‘the Trial Court’]. The Respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and appellants here are the defendant Nos.3 to 7 in the said suit. The respondent No.2 i.e., defendant No.2 died during the pendency of appeal, his legal representatives are already on record as appellants.

2. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 05.01.1990 and for a direction to the defendants to execute a registered sale deed in his favour.

3. Both the parties in this appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

4. The brief averments in the plaint in O.S. No.173 of 1990 are as under:

(i) The plaint schedule property belongs to the 1st defendant and she is the owner of the same. The 1st defendant gave the schedule property on lease to the father of plaintiff on 02.08.1984 under a lease deed. Since then, the father of plaintiff and plaintiff have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and running a lodge therein under the name and style of “Siddartha Lodge”. As per the lease agreement the 1st defendant received a sum of Rs.40,000/- as advance at the time of lease and also borrowed Rs.30,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from the father of the plaintiff on 02.08.1984. The rent for the plaint schedule premises was Rs.1,100/- per month.

(ii) It is averred in the plaint that the 1st defendant offered to sell away the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and the plaintiff accepted for the same. The price of the plaint schedule property was determined at Rs.1,85,000/-. The 1st defendant after deducting the advance amount of Rs.40,000/- and the amount borrowed with interest from 02.08.1984 to 05.01.1999 at 18% per annum which comes to Rs.59,250/- aggregating both the amounts to Rs.99,250/- and received balance amount of Rs.85,750/- from the plaintiff and executed an agreement of sale in a ten rupees stamp paper on 05.01.1990. Thus, the plaintiff paid full consideration amount. Already the possession of the schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff on 02.08.1984 from the 1st defendant. As per the conditions stipulated in the agreement of sale, the 1st defendant shall register the plaint schedule property either to the plaintiff or his nominee as demanded by him. Several times the plaintiff demanded the 1st defendant to execute a registered sale deed but she was evading. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The 1st defendant in spite of receiving full sale consideration demanded the plaintiff to pay some more amount for registration. The plaintiff refused to pay the same. The 1st defendant is trying to alienate the plaint schedule property to some others. Hence, the suit.

5. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant No.1 as follows:

(i) The suit is neither just nor sustainable at law. She admits that this defendant leased out the plaint schedule property and the articles mentioned in the lease agreement to the father of the plaintiff on 02.08.1984 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,100/- and executed a lease agreement on the said date by receiving Rs.40,000/- as advance from the plaintiff’s father. She further admits that she barrowed Rs.30,000/- from the father of the plaintiff on 02.08.1984. She further admits that a lodge by name Siddartha Lodge was being run by the father of the plaintiff in the schedule premises.

(ii) She contends that without the consent of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff’s father and the plaintiff removed 8 Teak Beems from the schedule building, each beem costing not less than Rs.10,000/- and sold them away. Plaintiff’s father failed to pay the rent for