The court affirmed that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations, which was established in this case despite claims of collusion.

Judgment:

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the decree and judgment, dated 03.08.2012 in A.S.No.75 of 2006, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, allowing the appeal in part the decree and judgment, dated 21.01.2016 in O.S.No.47 of 1995, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur.

2. The appellant herein is the 7^th defendant; the 1^st respondent herein is plaintiff and the respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein are defendant Nos.2 to 6 and 8 in O.S.No.47 of 1995, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. It is to be noted herein that during the pendency of this appeal, the 3^rd respondent died and her legal representatives were already on record as respondent Nos.2, 4 and5.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.47 of 1995, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, with a prayer for specific performance of agreement of sale by receiving the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed for the suit properties in favour of plaintiff and get it register and deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.

4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, decreed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the 7^th defendant in the above said suit filed A.S.No.75 of 2006, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, partly allowed the appeal directing the defendants to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of plaint item No.1 of schedule properties and dismissed the appeal in so far as item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule property by modifying the decree and judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful 7^th defendant 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.47 of 2006, is as follows:

The 1^st defendant was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. She had agreed to sell away the schedule mentioned properties in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.54,000/- for her family necessities, court expenses and to discharge her old debts. On 19.05.1990 the 1^st defendant had received a sum of Rs.45,000/- from the plaintiff as advance for the said sale consideration and she had executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to receive the balance of sale consideration after the civil litigations, which are pending in O.S.No.98/1989 on the file of District Munsif, Nagari and O.S.No.200/1990, on the file of Sub-Ordinate Judge Court, Puttur, are over and execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and get it registered. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract due to the said litigation. The plaintiff recently came to know that the said civil litigations are collusive litigations between the 1^st defendant and defendant Nos.2 to 5 and also came to know that the 2^nd defendant had fraudulently alienated the schedule mentioned properties in collusion, dated 16.08.1995. The plaintiff further came to know that the defendant Nos.2 to 5 within three days had fraudulently alienated the schedule mentioned properties in favour of 7^th defendant in collusion with him under a fraudulent, sham, nominal, null and void sale deed, dated 19.08.1995. The defendant Nos.2 to 7 are well aware of the suit agreement of sale.

The 1^st 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:

There is no cause of action to file this suit. The plaintiff is not entitled for any of the relief much less the relief of specific performance of contract and for delivery of possession of the suit properties. The 1^st defendant neither agreed to sell