The plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract within the stipulated time precluded him from obtaining the relief of specific performance.

Headnote:
specific performance - Agreement for Sale - Time stipulated in the agreement - readiness and willingness to perform - cancellation of agreement - mortgage loan - hardship to the defendant
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an Agreement for Sale, alleging that the defendant failed to execute the Sale Deed and demanded double the price. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the agreement was cancelled by mutual consent. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiff appealed.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract within the stipulated time. The Court also noted that the defendant had entered into a new agreement for sale with another buyer and was ready to refund the advance amount to the plaintiff. The Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance.
Issues: 1. Whether time was the essence of the Agreement for Sale? 2. Whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance? 4. Whether the judgment and decree warrants interference?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract within the stipulated time precluded him from obtaining the relief of specific performance. The Court also considered the defendant's actions and the hardship that would be caused to the defendant in granting the relief.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and confirmed the Trial Court's judgment and decree.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The present appellant as plaintiff had instituted a suit in O.S.No.39/2008 against the present respondent in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Trial Court" ) for the relief of specific performance.

2. The summary of the plaint averments in the Trial Court was that, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant on Dt. 17/5/2007 for the purchase of suit schedule 'A' properties which are three pieces of immovable properties, in total measuring 51 cents, for a total consideration of a sum of Rs.14,28,000.00 from the defendant who was the absolute owner in possession of the said 'A' schedule properties. On the date of the agreement, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.8,50,000.00 to the defendant as earnest money towards the part performance of the contract. The said sum of Rs.8,50,000.00 included a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 in the form of two cheques and remaining sum of Rs.6,50,000.00 in the form of cash. It was agreed that the Sale Deed had to be executed in favour of the plaintiff within six months from the date of the agreement and that the plaintiff, as a purchaser had to pay the balance sale consideration of a sum of Rs.5,78,000.00 at the time of execution of the Sale Deed. It is further the contention of the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the promise under the contract, as such, on Dt.18/5/2008, he had come to Udupi from Chennai where he runs his hotel business, to complete the formalities of execution of Sale Deed in his favour. However, to his shock and surprise, the defendant revealed that he has mortgaged the suit schedule 'A' properties with Syndicate Bank, Car street Branch, Udupi, for loan of a sum of Rs.7,50,000.00 and gave an excuse to postpone the execution of the Sale Deed and started demanding double the price of what was agreed under the sale agreement. Hearing the same, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant through his lawyer on Dt.01-09- 2008, calling upon the defendant to execute the Sale Deed in his favour. However, the defendant even after receipt of the notice did not comply with the demand made therein. This constrained the plaintiff to institute a suit against him for the relief of specific performance of the agreement in the Trial Court.

3. In response to the suit summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his Written Statement, wherein he stated that he had mortgaged the suit schedule 'A' properties in Syndicate Bank, Car street Branch, Udupi and availed financial assistance to a tune of Rs.7,50,000.00. Though he admitted that, there existed an Agreement of Sale between himself and the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule 'A' properties, which was entered into on Dt.17/5/2007, but contended that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the promise under the contract. Since the plaintiff did not pay the balance amount and come forward to get the Sale Deed executed in his favour, a meeting was held in the presence of witnesses and in the said meeting the plaintiff had agreed to take back the advance amount of Rs.8,50,000.00 paid to the defendant and agreed for cancellation of the Agreement for Sale.

Accordingly, the defendant made arrangement for refund of the advance amount of Rs.8,50,000.00 to the plaintiff and started searching for a buyer of the suit schedule 'A' properties. Accordingly, he found a buyer by name one Sri. K. Narayana Ballal, who agreed to purchase the suit schedule 'A' properties for consideration of a sum of Rs.15,00,000.00, in which regard, an agreement with him was entered into by the defendant on Dt.14/6/2008. Noting the previous agreement in favour of the plaintiff and existence of a mortgage loan upon the suit schedule 'A' properties, the said buyer - Sri.K. Narayana Ballal agreed to purchase the said suit schedule 'A' properties and also paid an advance amount of a sum