Specific performance of a contract is a discretionary remedy that requires the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform their obligations within the stipulated time.

JUDGMENT :

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 11.10.2018 in A.S.No.124 of 2016, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 21.01.2016 in O.S.No.180 of 2011, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur.

2. The appellant herein is the Plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No.180 of 2011, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.180 of 2011, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, with a prayer for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 13.07.2009 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, decreed the suit with costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.124 of 2016, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Hindupur. The learned II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, allowed the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful plaintiff approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.180 of 2011, is as follows:

The defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, who intended to sell the same to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- and executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 13.07.2009, after receiving an advance of Rs.1,50,000/-. The plaintiff agreed to pay the balance of sale consideration within four months. The defendant agreed to produce link documents and encumbrance certificate. The plaintiff also agreed to obtain „No Objection Certificate” from the concerned authorities with his own expenses. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to obtain registered sale deed. The District Collector, Ananthapuram issued „No Objection Certificate” on 08.06.2011. The plaintiff issued notice, dated 01.12.2011, demanding the defendant to execute registered sale deed. The defendant did not come forward and execute registered sale deed. Hence the suit.

7. The defendant filed written statement before the trial Court by denying the averments in the plaint. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:

The plaintiff did not pay the balance of sale consideration within stipulated four months time. The plaintiff did not issue any legal notice to the defendant as required under law. In the month of July, 2011 one Tirupataiah and Aswarthappa approached the defendant at Kurnool and they informed that the plaintiff was not willing to perform his part of the contract and requested to enter into fresh agreement of sale and offered to pay Rs.2,50,000/-. The plaintiff expressed his unwillingness to perform the part of the contract to the husband of the defendant over phone. Then the defendant executed fresh agreement of sale in favour of Tirupataiah and Ramakrishnamma by receiving advance amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. They promised to get the agreement of sale from the plaintiff. They agreed to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- within three months. The plaintiff, Tirupataiah and Ramakrishnamma failed to pay the balance of sale consideration under the new agreement of sale, dated 09.07.2011. The said agreement is stands cancelled. The plaintiff was never ready and willing to obtain registered sale deed. Therefore, the defendant requested to dismiss the suit with costs.

8. On the ba