Specific performance of a sale agreement executed during a non-alienation clause period is valid if the agreement stipulates fulfillment after the clause's expiration, emphasizing the need for equitable considerations.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding passed in R.A.No.119/2016 dated 11.08.2022 partly allowing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.194/2012 dated 17.12.2016 with regard to the relief of specific performance is concerned.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court seeking the relief of specific performance of contract that defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property and he has offered to sell the suit schedule property for his family necessity and for discharging the loans. The defendant has entered into an agreement with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for Rs.1,06,000/- and defendants have received the entire sale consideration and executed the sale agreement dated 29.04.2000. It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendants have agreed to hand over the possession and the original documents to the plaintiff. Since, there is a non-alienation clause, had agreed to execute the sale deed after the expiry of said non-alienation clause. It is contended that immediately after the expiry of 15 years of non-alienation period, the plaintiff caused the legal notice and reply was given by the defendants denying the very execution of the sale agreement. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of specific performance on contract.

3. The defendant in the written statement denied the very execution of the sale agreement and also contend that when the grant was made in the year 1997, Government has imposed a condition that defendants have no right to alienate the property for a period of 15 years and as on the date of alleged agreement, the defendants have no right to execute the sale agreement. It is contended that the defendants are illiterate and innocent persons and plaintiff being an advocate, taken a signatures of defendants on the blank paper for the purpose of loan and defendants believe the words of the plaintiff, handed over the documents to the plaintiff. The defendants contended that the defendants never executed any agreement in favour of the plaintiff and not received any amount from him and hence, the alleged agreement is void and it cannot be enforceable under law.

4. The Trial Court having considered the grounds urged in the plaint as well as in the written statement, framed the following Issues:

1. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendants have agreed to sell the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,06,000/- and on 29.04.2000 executed sale agreement in favour of plaintiff by receiving the entire sale consideration from the plaintiff?

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

3. Whether defendant proves that the plaintiff by playing mischief has obtained the signature of the defendants on blank papers and now by manipulating the same come up with this suit?

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed?

5. What order?

5. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW1 and also got examined two witness as PW2 and PW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P23. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined as DW1 and his wife i.e., defendant No.2 examined as DW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D15. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record c