IMPORTANT POINT
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations; failure to do so bars relief.

JUDGMENT :

(Ramachandra D. Huddar J.)

Appellants-defendants have called in question the Judgment rendered by the Sr.Civil Judge, Channarayapatna dated 20th October 2012 in OS No.4/2008 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of specific performance of the suit agreement dated 02.08.2007 one executed by the defendants by directing them to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in accordance with agreement of sale dated 02.08.2007 within three months as the plaintiff has already deposited remaining balance consideration of amount of Rs.16,00,000/- before the Court and if the defendants fail to execute the above said registered sale deed then, the plaintiff is at liberty to get it executed by the Court by appointing a Commissioner in this behalf at the cost of the defendants.

2. The facts of the case in brief are stated; the defendants are the owners of the suit schedule property having agreed to sell the same in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.17,00,000/-. To that effect, they executed an agreement of sale on 02.08.2007 by receiving advance consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- in part performance of the contract executed an agreement of sale. It is further averred that the defendants agreed to execute the registered sale in favour of the plaintiff within six months after getting the Khatha and other documents changed in their name and also on receipt of balance consideration of Rs.16,50,000/-. It is further averred that during the month of September 2007, the defendants approached the plaintiff and requested to pay Rs.50,000/- and accordingly, plaintiff paid the same. To that effect, defendants acknowledged and an undertaking was given as per the aforesaid agreement of sale.

3. It is alleged that defendants did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is alleged that plaintiff was and is always ever ready and willing to perform her part of contract. It is stated that as such, plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants on 04.02.2008 and called upon to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. But, defendants refused to receive the notices. The plaintiff got the knowledge that defendants are making attempts to alienate the suit schedule property to the strangers therefore, plaintiff filed the suit in OS No.4/2008 seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

4. Before the trial Court, pursuant to the suit summons, all the defendants appeared and filed their written statement inter alia contending, that so far as their ownership of the suit schedule property it is admitted. They also admit about execution of the agreement of sale dated 02.08.2007, receipt of advance amount of Rs.50,000/- on the said day and also further receipt of Rs.50,000/- on 10.09.2007. They specifically denied the other averments made in the plaint with regard to the ready and willingness alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint. According to defendants, such averments are all false. It is contended that, since at that time, defendants were in dire need of money to meet the domestic necessities, therefore, they entered into agreement of sale. It is contended that, plaintiff pleaded her financial difficulties to pay the entire balance sale consideration amount and only paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-. She undertook to complete the sale transaction within the time agreed under the said sale agreement. It is contended that though the defendants were ready to perform their part of the contract, but, plaintiff herself went on postponing the same expressing her financial difficulties. It is their contention that, infact, they obtained the Khatha and other documents in their name at the time of agreement of sale itself. Despite that plaintiff has not come forward to complete the sale transaction and thus, failed to perform her part of the contract within the time stipulated. It is contended that thereby she has lost her right to enforce the per