The court established that a plaintiff's readiness and willingness to execute a sale can be validated even if the defendants fail to fulfill their obligations as per the agreement, making the suit for specific performance valid despite time stipulations.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.Sandesh, J.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2020 passed in R.A.No.17/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of specific performance is that the appellants herein have entered into an agreement of sale agreeing to sale the property for sale consideration of Rs.99,000/- and out of the said sale consideration, an amount of Rs.95,000/- was paid and balance amount payable is Rs.4,000/- at the time of registration and the defendants have to furnish the documents for the registration but they did not furnish any documents and not obtained any sketch. Hence, legal notice was issued on 18.02.2013 to execute the sale deed but the defendants gave untenable reply and hence, approached the Court for the relief of specific performance.

4. The defendants appeared though their counsel and defendant No.4 has filed his written statement and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have adopted the same. In the written statement the defendants have admitted the execution of the suit documents but contend that the plaintiff did not come forward to get the sale deed registered within the time bound fixed as per the suit documents. Inspite of repeated approaches made by the defendants, the plaintiff failed to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed registered within three months. Therefore, the suit is barred by time and the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of specific performance.

5. The Trial Court having considered the averments made in the plaint and in view of the admission of the execution of the suit documents in the written statement, only framed the following Issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

2. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is barred by limitation?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief/s as claimed in the suit?

4. What order or decree?

6. The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P5. On the other hand, defendant No.4 examined himself as DW1 and no documents were got marked. The Trial Court having considered the material on record comes to the conclusion that the recitals of the document at Ex.P1 is very clear that though time was stipulated for a period of three months, the same is for providing documents to register the sale agreement and till then, the agreement is valid. The Trial Court also taken note of the admission on the part of PW1 which is extracted and also the admission given by DW1 in his cross-examination. DW1 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that within three months, they did not obtain any sketch and also categorically admitted that the plaintiff demanded for the sketch on several occasions and also categorically admitted that in respect of the suit schedule property, they did not get the separate sketch and also categorically admitted that the responsibilities on the defendants to obtain the sketch. Having considered the depositions of PW1 and DW1, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff was always ready to have the sale deed since he has made the payment of Rs.