The court emphasized that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove readiness and willingness, which was lacking in the context of an unregistered agreement, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsels for respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 4.

2. The parties are referred to in the original ranking before the Trial Court, in order to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of specific performance is that defendant Nos.1 to 4 representing them as owners of the agricultural land measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and 28 guntas in Sy.No.11 of Uttarahalli, Manavarthe Kaval, Uttarahalli Hobli agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a valuable consideration. That after negotiation, the terms and conditions have been reduced into writing as per the sale agreement dated 27.11.1999. That the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have agreed to sell the suit schedule property for Rs.4,00,000/- per acre and they have received Rs.6,00,000/- by way of cash as on the date of the agreement. That they have handed over the possession of the suit schedule property on the date of execution of the sale agreement. It is contended that the plaintiff after being inducted into possession of the suit schedule property, has improved the suit schedule property for making it more advantageous for agricultural operations and he was always ready and willing to perform his part of duty towards the contract. However, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 postponed the execution of the sale deed on one of the other pretext. The plaintiff also approached the defendants on 02.09.2004 and made further request for completion of the sale transaction as agreed through the agreement dated 27.11.1999. That on 13.09.2004, plaintiff has issued notice to the defendant Nos.1 to 4 to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration. Inspite of receipt of notice, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have not performed their part of duty towards the contract. That on enquiry in the office of the Sub-Registrar, plaintiff came to know that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have already executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 on 02.04.2004. That taking advantage of the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4, the defendant No.5 is trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. The defendant No.5 tried to take possession forcibly on 29.01.2005. However, the illegal of defendant No.5 has been resisted by the plaintiff and he was always ready and willing to perform his part of obligation towards the contract. However, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have not kept up their promise and executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 and hence, the plaintiff has been constrained to file the suit for specific performance.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, inspite of service of notice, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have not filed any written statement, though represented through counsel. The defendant No.5 filed the written statement and he categorically denied the plaint averments and also contend that the alleged agreement is a sham document and the same is created. It is also contended that suit is barred by limitation and that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have executed agreement of sale dated 07.07.2002 in favour of one Dr. Umesh Babu, who is the son of the defendant No.5. It is contended that by virtue of the said agreement, the said Dr. Umesh Babu i.e., the son of defendant No.5 was put in actual possession of the suit schedule property. It is contended that sale deed was executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.5 in the presence of plaint