Plaintiff's entitlement to specific performance established by demonstrating continuous readiness and willingness under the Specific Relief Act, irrespective of delays or signature mismatches.

JUDGMENT :

Jyoti Mulimani, J.

Sri. Sharan B. Tadahal, counsel for the appellant, has appeared in person.

Though the appeal is listed today for orders regarding a hearing-interlocutory application, with the consent of counsel for the appellant, it is heard.

Sri.A.Venugopal - the original respondent died on 16.08.2019. Notice to the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent was ordered on 01.10.2024. A perusal of the office note depicts that the legal representatives of the deceased sole respondent are served and unrepresented. They have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

2. This is an appeal from the Court of XXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-36).

3. For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to as per their status and rankings before the Trial Court.

4. The plaint averments are these:

The defendant is the rightful owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, having acquired the same under the Partition Deed dated 28.09.2009. The defendant needed money; hence, he entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff on 14.07.2014 and agreed to sell the property for a sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and received an advance sale consideration of Rs.9,50,000/- under the agreement for sale. The defendant agreed to execute the sale deed within eleven months from the date of the Agreement for sale, and at the same time, the plaintiff agreed to pay the rest of the sale consideration amount of Rs.50,000/-

Subsequently, when eleven months of stipulated time were over, the plaintiff followed up with the defendant daily to complete the sale transaction and was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- as per the Agreement for sale dated 14.07.2014. It is also said that the plaintiff after having tried all the means of contact for the defendant to complete the sale transaction was left with no option but to send the defendant a legal notice and the same came to be sent to the defendant on 06.07.2017 and the same was also received by the defendant via RPAD and Speed post.

In the legal notice, the plaintiff expressed his desire/willingness to complete the sale transaction, though there was already a substantial amount of delay from the defendant's side. The defendant did not bother to tender any reply to the said legal notice, leaving the plaintiff no option but to approach the Court. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of Specific Performance.

After registration of the suit, a summons was issued to the defendant; however, it was returned with the notation "No such person. Returned". Thereafter, the plaintiff was constrained to take out notice by way of substituted service through paper publication. The defendant did not appear before the Court; hence, he was placed ex-parte vide order dated 31.07.2018 since service of summons through paper publication held sufficient.

The Trial Court framed issues. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked four documents. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 12.09.2018 dismissed the suit. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal under Section 96 of CPC.

5. Sri.Sharan B.Tadahal, counsel for the appellant, submits that the Judgment of the Trial Court is opposed to law and contrary to the oral and documentary evidence on record.

Next, he submits that the Trial Court misread the pleadings and recitals of the registered agreement for sale dated 14.07.2014, agreed between the plaintiff and defendant,