A party seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform contractual terms; non-compliance with procedural requirements can lead to dismissal of appeals.

JUDGMENT :

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.

1. Both the Second Appeals i.e., S.A. No.563 of 2025 and S.A. No. 575 of 2025 are disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. These Second Appeals i.e. S.A.No. 563 of 2025 is filed against A.S. No. 8 of 2016, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.12.2014, made in O.S. No.361 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, and S.A.No. 575 of 2025 is filed against A.S. No. 32 of 2015, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole in confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.12.2014 made in O.S. No.361 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole; are filed by the Plaintiff in the suit O.S. No 361 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Ongole Plaintiff/Tenant.

3. Suit O.S. No. 810 of 2006, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge was filed for eviction against the defendant, who is the plaintiff in Suit O.S. No. 361 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge. The latter suit was filed for specific performance against the plaintiff in O.S. No. 810 of 2006. Subsequently, the eviction suit was transferred to the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and renumbered as O.S. No. 45 of 2009. Both matters were clubbed together and disposed of by a common judgment dated 26.12.2014. The suit for specific performance was dismissed, and the eviction suit was decreed.

4. Defendant/Owner filed suit for eviction and Plaintiff/Tenant filed suit for Specific Performance against each other. For better understanding, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court. In the Trial Court the parties were referred as Plaintiff/Tenant and Defendant/Owner.

5. A.S No. 8 of 2016 is filed against judgment and Decreed dated 26.12.2014 in O.S No. 361 of 2007 and A.S No. 32 of 2015 is filed against judgment and Decreed dated 26.12.2014 in O.S No.145 of 2009, both the appeals were dismissed by VII Additional District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole vide Judgment and Decree dated 31.12.2024.

6. Aggrieved by the commons order in both the appeals the present Second Appeals filed under Section 100 CPC.

7. The case of the Plaintiff/Tenant is that Defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property that he obtained sale deed from his father-in-law vide registered sale deed dated 19.05.1997 by name Devathu Musala Rao and the Plaintiff/Tenant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as a lessee. Devathu Musala Rao subsequently sold four shops located around the property to his daughter-in-law, and the Plaintiff/Tenant later purchased these four shops. When the Defendant expressed an intention to sell the property, the Plaintiff/Tenant offered Rs.4,00,000 and paid Rs.3,90,000/- towards the sale consideration. An agreement of sale was executed by the defendant/owner on 06.03.2005, but the sale deed has not been executed, despite the Plaintiff/Tenant being ready and willing to fulfill the terms of the contract. As a result, the Plaintiff/Tenant has been compelled to file a suit for specific performance.

8. The case of the defendant/owner in nutshell is that Plaintiff/Tenant is the tenant of his father-in-law, who purchased the leased property through a registered sale deed dated 19.05.1997. The tenancy continued with a monthly rent of Rs. 1,100 as per the lease agreement signed by the Plaintiff/Tenant on 01.04.2003. The father-in-law, currently residing in Bangalore due to employment, has be