IMPORTANT POINT
Specific performance of a contract is a discretionary remedy, requiring proof of readiness and willingness by the plaintiff, which was established in this case.

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/defendants challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 30.06.2005, in O.S.No.148 of 2002 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit.

2. The Plaintiff filed the above said suit against the defendants to direct the defendants to execute a registered sale deed in respect of plaint schedule property at the expenses of plaintiff in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 04.06.1999, in case of default, the Court may be pleased to execute a regular registered sale deed on behalf of plaintiff through process of Court and for costs.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.148 of 2002, are as under:

The deceased first defendant is the absolute owner of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property, having been acquired the same under registered sale deeds dated 21.10.1994 and 01.03.1995 from the lawful owners thereof for a valuable consideration. The deceased first defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff on 04.06.1999 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4,95,000/- and received an advance sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on the same day and executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff by undertaking to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property as and when plaintiff pays the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,95,000/- and demanded to execute a regular registered sale deed at his expenses. Plaintiff approached the deceased first defendant several times and offered to pay him the remaining balance of sale consideration of Rs. 2,95,000/- and requested the deceased first defendant to execute regular registered sale deed in his favour at his expenses, but inspite of repeated demands and notice dated 21.02.2002, the deceased first defendant failed to comply with the terms of agreement of sale. First defendant died on 12.06.2002, leaving behind him, defendants 2 to 5 as his only legal heirs, who succeed to his entire estate including the suit schedule property. Hence, the defendants 2 to 5 are liable to execute a regular registered sale deed on behalf of deceased first defendant in favour of plaintiff after receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs. 2,95,000/- at the expenses of the plaintiff.

5. The third defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 2, 4 and 5, by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: -

The agreement of sale is not genuine and it is a forged document. Plaint schedule properties are not the absolute properties of deceased first defendant. The deceased from out of ancestral property, as manager of joint family, purchased the suit schedule property. Plaintiff and first defendant are closely moving with each other and plaintiff might have obtained the signature of late first defendant while he was under the influence of alcohol, there was no contract between the plaintiff and the deceased first defendant to sell the plaint schedule property and the defendants 2 to 5 have given reply notice dated 19.09.2002 to the notice of the plaintiff and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 04.06.1999?

(ii) Whether the agreement of sale dated 04.06.1999 is true, valid and binding on defendants?

(iii) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants DW1 was examined and Ex.B1