Point of law ;Agreement of Sale - Even if the sale transaction is a lawful transaction, the Court has to take note of the readiness and willingness of the parties to complete the sale transaction.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2003 passed in O.S.No.3105/1981 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City dismissing the suit for specific performance in respect of the suit schedule property and granting the alternative relief directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-to the plaintiffs along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization.

2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of late Dr. B.S. Subramanyam and instituted the suit on 14.10.1981 in O.S.No.3105/1981 seeking the relief of specific performance. During the pendency of the suit, the sole defendant D. Rangappa also passed away. Hence, the legal heirs are brought on record as defendants. The legal representatives of D. Rangappa adopted the written statement filed by their father and not filed any fresh written statement, but filed written statement after amendment of plaint. The main relief sought in the plaint is for enforcement of the sale deed which was entered into by the defendant, D. Rangappa for Rs.60,000/-and out of that, an amount of Rs.30,000/-was received and balance was payable at the time of registration of the sale deed.

4. The main contention of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the sale deed was executed by defendant on 02.02.1976 and being the part of sale consideration, an amount of Rs.30,000/-was paid in the presence of the witnesses. The said sale deed could not be presented for registration since, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (for short the ‘ULC Act’) was adopted by the State of Karnataka with effect from 17.02.1976. As per the provisions of the said Act, permission by the competent authority was necessitated. The defendant sought the required permission by filing an application before the competent authority, but it was refused. The defendant being aggrieved of the order dated 01.06.1976, filed an appeal and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 15.12.1976.

5. It is further alleged in the plaint that on 15.05.1977, the defendant as required by the order of the Urban Land Tribunal undertook to seek the permission from the competent authority and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and get it registered by receiving the sale consideration of Rs.30,000/-being the balance, after permission is accorded by the said authority. The defendant, on that day, in token of his agreement to do so acknowledged in writing his liability to execute the sale deed or in the event of permission being refused, to repay the amount of sale consideration of Rs.30,000/-. He also signed the Photostat copy of the sale deed executed by him on 02.02.1976 and consented for the engrossed original sale deed stamp paper being returned to the Government for refund of the permissible stamp value. As assured and agreed, the defendant on 01.06.1977 filed an application before the competent authority for permission to sell the said house to the plaintiff. The permission sought is deemed to have been granted by the competent authority by efflux of time stipulated by law.

6. It is also alleged that the defendant on 11.02.1978 intimated the plaintiffs in writing as to his readiness to perform his part of the contract. Pursuant to the same, the plaintiff met the defendant and requested to execute the sale deed and to receive the balance of sale price. The defendant told to the plaintiff that he is yet to obtain the income tax clearance certificate to be produced before the Sub-Registrar at the time of sale deed being presented for registration soon and intimate the plaintiff.

7. It is further alleged in the plaint that since the defendant as promised did not intimate the plaintiff of his obtaining the said certificate, he approached him and