The court clarified that readiness and willingness to perform a contract under the Specific Relief Act is determined by the plaintiff's intent and actions, not solely by financial capacity.

JUDGMENT :

(Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.)

These three captioned second appeals arise out of suit for specific performance in O.S.No.237/2006.

2. RSA.No.808/2023 is filed by defendants 1 to 6 feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.51/2018 wherein defendants 1 and 3 to 6 are directed to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of 1 acre 20 guntas of land bearing Survey No.214/5 situated at Kudumalakunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk.

3. RSA.No.1358/2023 is filed by the plaintiff questioning the judgment and decree rendered in R.A.No.51/2018 wherein the appellate Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff insofar as land measuring one acre owned by first defendant- Anjinamma bearing Survey No.214/6.

4. RSA.1372/2023 is filed by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree rendered in R.A.No.105/2018 in granting a decree in favour of defendant No.7 in respect of one acre of land wherein the appellate Court has set aside the judgment of the trial Court directing defendant No.7 to pay compensation to the plaintiff and also the finding recorded by the trial Court on the sale deed obtained by defendant No.7.

5. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

6. Facts leading to the case are as under:

Plaintiff has instituted a suit for specific performance of contract in O.S.No.237/2006 based on an agreement to sell dated 15.01.2006 executed by defendants 1 and 2 in respect of suit land totally measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, out of which, one acre is owned by defendant No.1 and 1.20 guntas is owned by defendant No.2. The case of the plaintiff is that defendants 1 and 2 offered to sell the suit land for sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- and have executed an agreement to sell on 15.01.2006 by receiving earnest money of Rs.50,000/-. Plaintiff has contended that he was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract and the present suit is filed alleging that defendants 1 and 2 have sold land measuring one acre in favour of defendant No.7 under registered sale deed dated 29.09.2006 and the said transaction is in breach of contract between plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2.

7. Defendants 1 and 2, who are husband and wife have contested the suit by filing written statement. Defendant No.1 in her written statement has admitted the suit agreement executed in favour of plaintiff. Defendant No.1 has however alleged that plaintiff was not ready to perform his part of the obligation and has not shown his willingness to pay the balance sale consideration and get the property registered in his name. Defendant No.1 on the contrary has alleged that since plaintiff failed to complete the transaction as agreed under the suit agreement, she along with defendant No.2 and children have sold one acre of land in favour of defendant No.7 under registered sale deed dated 29.09.2006. Defendants 1 and 2 also contended that if relief of specific performance is granted in favour of plaintiff insofar as 1 acre 20 guntas, the same would cause more hardship to them and hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.

8. Defendant No.7 who is the purchaser of one acre of land claimed that he is a bonafide purchaser and that he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment in view of registered sale deed dated 29.09.2006.

9. Defendants 1 and 7 have also specifically alleged that plaintiff has unilaterally inserted a portion to negate the terms and conditions of the agreement and specific pleadings were raised in that regard at Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the additional written statement filed by them.

10. Plaintiff and defendants to substantiate their case have let in oral and documentary evidence.

11. Trial Court having examined the pleadings of the parties and oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties answered issue No.1 in the negative and held that plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Trial Court having ans