IMPORTANT POINT
A party seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.01.2018 in O.S. No.36/2009 passed by learned District Judge, Anantapuram dismissing the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 01.02.2009, the 1st plaintiff out of 4 plaintiffs filed the instant appeal.

2. The factual matrix of the case is thus:

(a) Defendants are the absolute owners of plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs and defendants entered into Ex.A1 - agreement to sell dated 01.02.2009 whereunder the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the plaint schedule land for Rs. 80 lakhs from the defendants and paid an advance of Rs. 10 lakhs. It was agreed that they should pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 70 lakhs within five months by 01.07.2009. Upon which the defendants agreed to execute the registered sale deed in their favour.

(b) It is further case of the plaintiffs that the 1st plaintiff will have 50% of the share and remaining plaintiffs 2 to 4 will together have remaining 50% of the share in the plaint schedule land on purchase.

(c) It is the case of the plaintiffs that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. However, they came to know in respect of suit schedule property there is a Second Appeal No. 335 of 2005 in C.M.A. No.694 of 2005 was pending before common High Court of Andhra Pradesh wherein interim status quo orders were passed and pending against the defendants herein. The said fact was not disclosed by the defendants. In that view, during the pendency of the said appeal the said property shall not be dealt with or alienate to anybody. Hence the plaintiffs brought the said fact before the defendants however there was no reply from them. The plaintiffs conducted number of mediations, negotiations and panchayats before the defendants. However, their efforts proved futile. Hence the suit for specific performance.

3. The 3rd defendant filed written statement opposing the suit and defendants 1, 2, 5 to 9 adopted the same. It is contended that the plaintiffs were never ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration to obtain registration. The allegation that there was a division of the suit schedule property among the plaintiffs was not known to the defendants and such a condition was not mentioned in Ex.A1- agreement to sell. Even the advance amount was not paid in full but only Rs. 9 lakhs was paid in cash and for the balance of Rs. 1 lakh cheque bearing No. 005876515013002 was issued and the same was dishonored for lack of funds in the account of plaintiffs. So far as the pendency of the appeal is concerned, plaintiffs were well aware of the pendency of the litigation regarding the suit schedule property and that cannot be a ground to question the defendants. Further contention of the plaintiffs that despite the notices the defendants were not willing to receive the balance sale consideration is false. Upon receiving notice dated 04.07.2009 issued by the plaintiffs on 09.07.2009 the defendants gave a reply notice dated 13.07.2009 whereunder the defendants intimated plaintiffs to pay the balance of sale consideration and get registered sale deed on 27.07.2009 but the plaintiffs failed to do so which establishes that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The defendants contended that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs themselves willfully avoided the performance of the contract.

4. The 4th defendant filed written statement contending that the plaintiffs were not ready and perform their part of contract and further the 4th defendant is entitled to 0.42 cents of the suit schedule property and he is willing to sell the same by receiving his share of the consideration.

5. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that so far as the pendency of the litigation before the High Court and the plaintiffs' allegation that the defendants did not inform the said fact to them is concerned, the observation of the trial Court is somewhat lacking clarity.