The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a specific performance case, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as well as the absence of unforeseen hardship on the defendant, are crucial factors in determining the outcome.

SUBHASH B. ADI, J.—This appeal is by the defendants against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 5150/1988 dated 16th August 2003 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore.

2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3. Suit is one for specific performance of the agreement dated 11.2.1988.

4. Plaintiff’s case is that, he had a enlarged family and he wanted to sell his house to buy a bigger one, he came in contact with the defendants, who were in need of funds for family necessities, to discharge some loans in Karnataka Housing Board and to meet the expenses to put up upstairs construction in their own property. Deceased defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement on 11.2.1988 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs. 1,52,500/-. Out of the total sale consideration, Rs. 54,500/- was received as a part of advance sale consideration by means of cheque. Plaintiff was to pay balance of sale consideration of Rs. 98,000/- on the date of registration of the sale deed. The said transaction was to be completed within six months. Plaintiff also agreed to bear the expenses of registration charges, stamp duty and preparation of sale deed, plaintiff was always ready and willing to discharge his part of contract including payment of balance sale consideration and he had kept the money ready, and is deposited in Indian Bank, Avenue Road Branch, under the deposit receipt dated 28.7.1988. However, under the agreement, defendants had agreed to secure possession certificate, sale deed, khata certificate, tax paid receipts from the Karnataka Housing Board. When the defendants did not hand over the documents, on account of the delay caused by the defendants in handing over the possession of the property and concluding the registration of the sale deed, plaintiff was constrained to issue notice dated 4.5.1988, 3.8.1988 and 19.8.1988 to the defendants, calling upon them to produce the documents to prepare formal sale deed and to conclude the registration by accepting the balance of sale consideration.

5. Defendants in reply to the notice issued by the plaintiff, made faulty defence inter alia admitting the agreement and denying to execute the sale deed on the ground that, the plaintiff had not put up solid concrete pillars with strong foundation with a girth of one foot of 10 feet vertical and 8 feet horizontal by the side of the centre load bearing common wall. Plaintiff though was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, one or the other reason, the defendants postponed the execution of the sale deed, as such, plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for specific performance.

6. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed separate written statement inter alia alleging that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract. He never came forward to construct pillars and beam, as agreed, the agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants to enable the defendant No. 1 to perform his first daughter’s marriage. Since the plaintiff did not make the payment and did not construct the pillars as agreed, the defendants are not liable to execute the sale deed. It is also contended that, if the decree is granted, it would cause great hardship to the defendants.

7. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has purchased the suit property for a sum of Rs. 1,52,500/- as per agreement of sale dated 11.2.1988?

(2) Whether it is further proved that the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Specific Performance of the contract?

(4) Whether the defendant proves that he has not executed the agreement to sell the suit schedule property, but his signature was taken on the agreement, and it was not acted upon and it is incomplete?

(5) Whether the agreement is void and not enforceable in law?

(6) Whether the defendant proves that for non-performan