The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, the grant of decree of specific performance, and the determination of the limitation period for the suit.

1. This is the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC, Bhadravathi in R.A. No. 21 of 2002 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Bhadravathi dated 20.08.2002 in O.S. No. 222 of 1994.

2. The brief facts leading to the present regular second appeal are that the appellant herein was the defendant before the original Court wherein O.S. No. 222 of 1994 was filed by the deceased respondent herein, who was the plaintiff in the said suit. The suit was for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 24.12.1982 to direct the defendant therein to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff in the said suit and in the alternative, for the recovery of the amount of Rs.43,500/- paid by the plaintiff as advance amount, with interest at 18% per annum, together with Court cost and other reliefs. In the said suit the defendant therein, who is the appellant in this regular second appeal, appeared and filed his written statement and ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendant therein to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property by receiving balance consideration of Rs.5,000/- from the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed in the suit, defendant preferred regular appeal in R.A. No. 21 of 2002 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC at Bhadravathi. The first appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 20.10.2005 dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed in the said appeal by the first appellate Court, defendant has preferred this appeal.

3. On 13.4.2010, the learned single Judge of this Court has formulated the substantial questions of law and allowed the second appeal by passing the judgment. The respondents legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff in the above regular second appeal challenged the legality of the said judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5076 of 2011 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 25696 of 2010). The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court and the regular second appeal is remanded back to the file of the High Court of Karnataka for fresh hearing and disposal by the High Court. It is also observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it is open to the parties to contend the substantial questions of law as framed by the High Court on 13.4.2010 do not arise or require modification.

4. The substantial questions of law formulated by this Court are as under:

(i) Whether the finding of the Court below as to the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract of sale can be said to be sustainable in view of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act?

(ii) Whether the grant of decree of specific performance can be sustained in law in the absence of trial Court taking note of provisions of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act?

(iii) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs was barred by time?

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/legal representatives of original plaintiff.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant during the course of his argument submitted that the suit has been filed after twelve years after the denial of the agreement of sale by the appellant-defendant. He also submitted that appellant-defendant has not received legal notice and P.W.4 the witness on the side of the plaintiff never said that another amount of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.3,000/- were paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. He has further submitted that the trial Court has recorded a negative finding on issue No.3 and it corroborates the defence of the defendant, which fact has