The court established that a plaintiff must continuously demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, while the burden lies on a subsequent purchaser to prove they acted in good faith without knowledge of prior agreements.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI V. HOSMANI, J

Challenging impugned judgment and decree dated 31.05.2007 passed in Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Kolar, and judgment and decree dated 15.07.2004 passed by Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Kolar, in O.S.no.255/1999, this appeal is filed.

2. Appeal was by defendants in OS no.255/1999 filed for specific performance in respect of property bearing khata no.541, assessment no.209/13 of vacant site no.11, measuring East-West - 30ft. and North-South - 40ft. situated at Keelukote village, Kasaba hobli, Kolar (“Suit Property” for short).

3. In plaint, it was stated defendant no.1 was absolute owner of suit property. For family necessity on 27.09.1997, he agreed to sell it to plaintiff by executing agreement of sale for total sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- by receiving Rs.45,000/- from plaintiff as advance, handing over original title deeds and agreeing to receive Rs.5,000/- at time of execution of sale deed. When he approached defendant no.1 with balance amount, defendant no.1 postponed several times, without cogent reason. It was stated plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract and time was not essence of contract, defendant no.1 failed to execute sale deed by receiving balance amount.

4. It was stated, during first week of November 1998, plaintiff came to know about defendant no.2 negotiating with defendant no.1 for purchase of suit property. Immediately plaintiff approached them along with Narayana Swamy and SR Nagaraj Gupta, and cautioned against entering into any transactions with regard to suit property. Both defendants assured him they would not transact with regard to suit property. Contrary to same and despite having knowledge of earlier agreement with plaintiff, defendant no.2 purchased suit property on 27.11.1998 for Rs.45,000/- with sole intention of causing injury or loss to plaintiff. Immediately, 15.04.1999, he got issued legal notice calling upon defendant no.1 for execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff and defendant no.2 to join in same. But after receipt, defendant no.1 got issued untenable reply with evasive denial. Hence, suit was filed.

5. On appearance, defendants filed separate written statements denying plaint averments and suit claim. In written statement filed by defendant no.1, ownership of suit property was admitted, but execution of agreement of sale on 27.09.1997 and receipt of advance sale consideration of Rs.45,000/-, plaintiff approaching him with balance amount, delivery of original records and allegations about default on terms of agreement etc. alleged in plaint were denied. He stated defendant no.2 had purchased suit property from him on 27.11.1997. It was stated suit was without cause of action.

6. It was specifically stated, plaintiff and his father - Ramappa were money lenders and running chits