A plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations for a decree of specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, which both lower courts adequately confirmed in this case.

JUDGMENT :

E.S.INDIRESH, J.

This appeal is preferred by the legal representatives of the defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2015 in RA.No.79/2010 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2010 in O.S.No.136/2006 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It is also stated in the plaint that, the defendant has entered an agreement of sale dated 19.12.2005 with the plaintiff and offered to sell the suit schedule property for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is also stated that on the date of the agreement of sale, defendant has received Rs.2,00,000/- as advance and the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- has to be paid within 3 months from the date of the execution of the agreement. It is also stated that, the plaintiff made a request for execution of the registered sale deed and also convened panchayats for resolution of the dispute. However, the defendant has not made any effort to execute the registered sale deed and as such the plaintiff has filed OS.No.136/2006 before the Trial Court seeking relief of the specific performance of the contract.

4. After service of notice, the defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement and contented that, the agreement dated 19.12.2005 said to have been relied upon by the plaintiff is a concocted document and the defendant never executed the said agreement with the plaintiff and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings on record formulated the issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, the plaintiff has examined the 4 witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and got marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. The defendant himself was examined as DW1 and got marked 4 documents as Exs.D1 to D4. The Trial Court after considering the material on record by its judgment and decree dated 16.09.2010, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred RA No.79/2010 before the First Appellate Court. The said appeal was contested by the plaintiff. The First Appellant Court after re-appreciating the materials on record by its judgment and decree dated 20.08.2015, dismissed the appeal, consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree in OS.No.136/2006. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of the defendant have preferred this appeal.

6. This Court vide order dated 29.06.2016, formulated the following substantial questions of law:

"1) Were the Courts below justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff when the plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract as contemplated U/s 16(c) of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT ?

2) Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as contemplated U/s 20 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT ?

3) Whether the lower Appellate court is justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the present case?"

7. I heard Sri Chennakeshava B.S, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri V.V.Gunjal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

8. Sri Chennakeshava B.S, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that, the defendant has disputed the execution of the agreem