The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish readiness and willingness to perform the contract for specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 07.07.2006.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The suit in O.S. No.213/2008 was filed to enforce a sale agreement dated 07.07.2006 by which the defendants had allegedly agreed to sell four acres of land in Sy.No.19/PA and 28/2A of Yelachatty village, Hangala Hobli, Gundlupet taluk for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,72,000/-and had received Rs.35,000/-as part of the agreed sale consideration and the balance was to be paid within three months from the date of the agreement at the time of registration of a deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that despite his attempts to get a sale deed executed, the defendants avoided and this compelled the plaintiff to cause a notice on 11.01.2008 calling upon the defendants to conclude the sale transaction. On the failure of the defendants to comply with the demand, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 20.12.2008.

4. The defendants contested the suit and claimed that the suit Item No.1 was granted to their father on 24.05.1994 and was subject to non-alienation for a period of 15 years and as on the date of the agreement, their father was alive and he had not signed the sale agreement. Insofar as Item No.2 is concerned, they claimed that it was the joint family property, where, their children were entitled to an undivided share in the said property. They also claimed that they had not executed the sale agreement as contended by the plaintiff.

5. Based on these rival contentions, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

i. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants agreed to sell the suit schedule property for consideration of Rs.1,72,000/- and obtained an amount of Rs.35,000/- and executed an agreement to sale dated 07.07.2007?

ii. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

iii. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to specific performance of contract?

iv. Whether the defendant proves that the allegation made in para 7 of their written statement?

v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought?

vi. What order or decree?

6. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he marked documents as Exs.P-1 to P-5 and examined two other witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3. The defendant No.3 was examined as D.W.1 and he marked documents as Exs.D-1 to D-5.

7. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the lawful execution of the sale agreement dated 07.07.2006 and also that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and thus dismissed the suit.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the plaintiff filed R.A. No.10/2019. The First Appellate Court secured the records of the Trial Court, heard the counsel for the parties and framed the following points for consideration:

i. Whether appellant/plaintiff has been established before the Trial Court that the defendants agreed to sell the suit property for sale consideration of Rs.1,72,000/- and received an amount of Rs.35,000/- on 07.07.2006 executed the registered agreement of sale?

ii. Whether the plaintiff/appellant proves that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

iii. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the relief of the specific performance of contract?

iv. Whether the judgment of the Trial Courts call for interference of this Court?

v. What order?

9. The First Appellate Court held that the defendants did not deny the receipt of the notice issued by the plaintiff calling upon them to comply their part of the contract. It held that the plaintiff had examined two witnesses, who deposed that the defendants had agreed to sell the suit pr