The Plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, including financial capacity, while the burden of proof shifts to the Defendant to disprove the agreement's validity.

JUDGMENT :

T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.

1. The Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C.'), is filed by the Appellant/Defendant challenging the decree and judgment dated 27.10.2016 in O.S.No.19 of 2014 passed by the learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Nandigama, Krishna District (for short, ‘the trial Court’).

2. Respondent is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2014 for Specific Performance of sale agreement dated 07.02.2014 seeking to direct the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.11,25,000/- and execute a regular Registered sale deed in respect of plaint schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff at his costs or in alternative to pass a decree for the amount of Rs.3,75,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of transaction till the date of realization. The Appellant herein is the defendant in the suit.

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

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

(a) The Defendant is the sole owner of property No. 4, measuring145.2 sq. yards, situated in R.S. No. 323 of Jaggaiahpet, along with an RCC roofed building (D.No. 6-591/4, Assessment No.1069006099, Electricity Service Nos. 5528 and 5527) (hereinafter, it would be referred as ‘plaint schedule property’). The Defendant purchased this property from Kolagani Kondaiah through a registered sale deed on 17.09.2005. On 07.02.2014, the Defendant offered to sell the property to the Plaintiff for Rs. 15,00,000/- in Bill Maktha. The Plaintiff accepted the offer and paid Rs. 3,75,000/- as earnest money. An agreement of sale was executed the same day, stipulating that the Plaintiff would pay the remaining Rs.11,75,000/- by 07.05.2014, and the Defendant would clear all dues, including taxes, electricity, and water charges.

(b) The Plaintiff holds sufficient funds in the form of security deposits (Nos.0333879 and 0333880) totalling Rs.9,00,000/- and a fixed deposit (No.0333882) of Rs.4,50,000/- in the same bank under her husband's name, with the fixed deposit maturing on 12.02.2014. The Plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform her obligations under the sale agreement since its execution. Despite this, when she approached the Defendant to complete the sale, the Defendant delayed, citing various excuses. On 04.04.2014, Plaintiff issued a legal notice confirming her readiness to pay the balance consideration and complete the sale at her own cost. In response, the Defendant received the notice but sent a caveat petition with false allegations, denying the sale agreement instead of proceeding with the agreement. The Plaintiff later discovered the Defendant's intention to avoid fulfilling her part of the contract for wrongful gain.

5. The Defendant filed a written statement denying the material allegations in the plaint, claiming that the sale agreement was false, fraudulent, and fabricated, lacking any consideration. She contended that in February 2014, with witness, she borrowed an interest-free hand loan from Plaintiff to settle her bank debt. Satyanarayana, Atluri Sridhar, and Pakalapati Kanaka Raju present. During this transaction, the Plaintiff allegedly obtained the Defendant's signatures on blank stamped papers as collateral security. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff issued a notice on 04.04.2014 with false claims; there was no contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant, denying the existence of the sale agreement. The legal notice issued by the Plaintiff is not valid in the eye of the Law. She asserted the suit was fictitious, devoid of merit, and filed with malafide intentions, seeking wrongful gain. The Defendant requested the suit be dismissed with costs, asserting no equities favouring the Plaintiff.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the foll