In specific performance cases, plaintiffs must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to fulfill contract obligations, with the absence of a forfeiture clause necessitating a refund of any advance paid.

JUDGMENT :

MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J.

1. Heard Sri Ch. Venkaiah, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and Sri G. Rama Chandra Rao, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/defendant. None appeared for respondent Nos.3 to 6/plaintiff Nos.4 to 7.

2. The instant first appeal is instituted by the appellants / plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 29.08.2012 passed in O.S.No.56 of 2010 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Guntur, wherein, the suit for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 16.12.2006 was dismissed against the 1^st respondent/defendant, arraying the sole defendant as 1^st respondent herein, and 3^rd plaintiff, who died and his legal representatives as respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the instant appeal before this Court.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to by their nomenclature, before the Trial Court.

Brief Case of the appellants/plaintiffs:

4. The brief case of the plaintiffs is that the sole defendant is the owner of the Suit Schedule Property having purchased the same under Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.5234/2003, dated 26.08.2003 and he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant himself offered to sell the Schedule Property to which the plaintiffs have agreed. Accordingly, on 16.12.2006, defendant executed a sale agreement in favour of the plaintiffs for a valid consideration of Rs.66,00,000/- out of which plaintiffs paid an amount of Rs.16,50,000/-, which the defendant has received and endorsed in the sale agreement.

5. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that according to the terms of the agreement dated 16.12.2006, plaintiffs have to pay balance of sale consideration of Rs.49,50,000/- to the defendant within two months, upon which defendant was obliged to execute registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also agreed that if the plaintiffs fail to perform their part of contract within the stipulated time, they have to pay an interest of 12% per annum on the balance sale consideration for the period of delay. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant has agreed to measure the Schedule Property under Agreement of Sale dated 16.12.2006 and receive the balance sale consideration as per the extent arrived.

6. According to the plaintiffs, they have approached the defendant several times and sought the defendant to receive the balance of consideration and register the Sale Deed, but the defendant postponed the same on one context or another and did not co-operate for the same. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant has shown them the Schedule Property under Agreement of Sale dated 16.12.2006 as a square shape plot. However, on enquiry, plaintiffs came to know that the said property is in triangular shape. When the plaintiffs questioned the defendant about the same, the defendant issued Legal Notice dated 11.05.2007 with false allegations, for which the plaintiffs issued Reply Notice dated 23.05.2007, expressing their willingness and intention to pay balance sale consideration and obtain Registered Sale Deed, after the defendant got the land surveyed and fix the boundary stones in a square shape, but the defendant did not co-operate. Hence, the plaintiffs instituted the lis seeking for specific performance of the Agreement