A party seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness, supported by evidence; mere denial of the agreement does not suffice without substantiation.

JUDGMENT :

Jyoti Mulimani, J.

Sri.Abdul Khadar., counsel for the appellant, and Sri.G.V.Shashikumar., counsel for respondents 1 and 2, have appeared in person.

2. For convenience’s sake, the status and ranking of the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court.

3. This is an appeal from the Court of XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16)

4. The plaint averments are as under:

The defendant - Sri.M.P.Shyamasunder is the son-in-law of the original plaintiff - Sri.T.R.Ramachandraiah. Based on the sale deed dated 27.05.2002, the defendant became the absolute owner of the property bearing No.84, Sy.No.8, Katha No.887, situated at Soundarya Layout, Near Meenakshi Layout, Sededahalli, Nagasandra Post, Chikkabanavara Group Panchayath, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet, totally measuring 1200 square feet. The defendant acquired the Schedule-A property with the assistance of the plaintiff and further put up construction measuring 30 X 22 on the southern portion of the Schedule-A property. The plaintiff and his family members were residing along with the defendant in the said house till the death of Smt.Venkatalakshmamma.

As things stood thus, the defendant intended to dispose of the remaining portion of the suit Schedule-A property, i.e., the northern portion of the suit Schedule-A property measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 18 feet, referred to as Schedule-B property. The defendant wanted to sell the same to fulfill his family needs and to discharge the loan availed from HDFC Bank. The plaintiff expressed his intention to purchase the same, and the defendant offered to sell the Schedule-B property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-, and the plaintiff accepted the same.

In pursuance of the offer and acceptance, the defendant executed an agreement for sale dated 22.04.2004 in favor of the plaintiff, to which the wife of the defendant is also a consenting witness. The plaintiff had paid an advance amount of Rs.60,000/- being a part of the sale consideration on the date of the agreement. The plaintiff has also put up a small house in the Schedule-B property for his personal use. As per the terms of the agreement, the defendant had agreed to receive the balance sale consideration only after the defendant discharges the entire loan availed by him from HDFC Bank, and subsequently, the defendant would execute the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff. It is stated that as of the date of the agreement, the defendant had put the plaintiff in possession of the Schedule-B property. The defendant requested the plaintiff on 01.11.2004 for payment of Rs.30,000/- out of the balance sale consideration, citing an urgent financial crisis. The plaintiff accordingly paid the defendant by cash a sum of Rs.30,000/-, which was duly acknowledged by executing an endorsement on the aforesaid agreement to sell by both the defendant and his wife. At the time of receipt of the said amount, the defendant had pleaded his difficulty and further assured that he would discharge the HDFC loan at the earliest and execute the sale deed. The defendant and his wife once again approached the plaintiff and demanded the payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/-, as the same was required to be paid towards the loan borrowed from HDFC Bank. The plaintiff believing the defendant and his wife and to secure the registered sale deed has paid the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant on 13.07.2007 by way of cash after withdrawing a sum of Rs.35,000/- from his son's savings Bank Account vide A/c No.1928 in Srin