Specific performance can be granted when the plaintiff shows readiness and willingness to fulfill contractual obligations, despite defendants' claims of irregularity in executing the agreement.

JUDGMENT :

T.Mallikarjuna Rao, J.

The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, is filed by the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 challenging the decree and Judgment dated 17.06.2010 in O.S.No.27 of 2004 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nellore (for short, 'trial court').

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

3. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.27 of 2004 seeking Specific Performance of an agreement of sale dated 14.09.2003 by directing the defendants to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving a sum of Rs.8,93,500/- towards the balance of sale consideration.

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

(a) The defendants are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants offered to sell the plaint schedule property @ Rs.2,70,000/- per acre to the plaintiff. On 14.09.2003, the defendants received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards advance of sale consideration and executed a stamped sale agreement in plaintiff's favour. According to the terms of the agreement, the schedule land needed to be measured to determine its actual extent, and the plaintiff is expected to pay the outstanding sale consideration for the verified extent at the agreed rate. The plaintiff has to obtain a registered sale deed at his expense within five months from the date of agreement dated 14.09.2003. Despite the plaintiff's request for cooperation in measuring the land to ascertain the actual extent and to receive the balance of sale consideration and execute the registered sale deed, the defendants were postponing the same on one pretext or other. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, the defendants did not come forward to fulfil their part of the contract. As there was no response from the defendants, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 27.01.2004 requesting the defendants to complete their part of the contract. The defendants replied on 12.02.2004 confirming the execution of the sale agreement and receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- as advance for the sale consideration. Nevertheless, they made several false allegations concerning land ownership and other related matters.

(b) Within a short time, the defendants sent a mediator to the plaintiff stating that they had already measured the said land at the time of their purchase on 12.09.1980 and offered to execute a regular sale deed on payment of the balance of sale consideration for Ac.4.05 cents @ Rs.2,70,000/- per acre. The plaintiff agreed to pay the balance of the sale consideration to the defendants. Even after that, the defendants started prolonging the matter without performing their part of the contract. Now, it has become apparent that the defendants are attempting to sell the plaint schedule property to third parties at higher price, while concealing their existing sale agreement with the plaintiff. If they are successful in doing so, it would result in significant and irreparable losses for the plaintiff.

5. (a) The 2nd defendant adopted the 1st defendant's written statement, contended that the 1st defendant had received an advance payment of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and signed the stamped agreement of sale dt.14.09.2003; he denied the plaintiff's claim of non-cooperation by the defendants in measuring the land and ascertaining its actual extent; the 2nd defendant also acknowledged the notice issued