The necessity for continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract is crucial in specific performance cases, impacting the validity of decrees granted on such grounds.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

1. This appeal is by the defendant No.2 directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 02.01.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi in OS No.203/2017 whereby the said suit by the respondent No.1-plaintiff against the appellant-defendant No.2 and respondent No.2-defendant No.1 for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property was decreed in favour of the respondent No.1-plaitniff against the respondent No.2-defenant No.1 and appellant-defendant No.2 by the trial Court.

2. In the present appeal, the appellant-defendant No.2 prays for the following reliefs:

“For the reasons stated above it is humbly prayed that after calling for the records and proceeds of the case this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 02.01.2023 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi in O.S.No.203/2017 and to dismiss the suit O.S.No.203/2017 by allowing this R.F.A. with costs in the interest of justice.”

3. For the purpose of convenience parties will be referred as per their respective ranks before the trial Court.

4. Briefly facts giving raise to the present appeal as borne out from the pleadings of the parties are as under:

The defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule immovable landed property described in paragraph No.3 of the plaint. On 14.03.2005, the defendant No.1 executed an unregistered sale agreement in favour of defendant No.2 and after having received certain sum of advance towards the sale transaction, the defendant No.2 made subsequent payments during the period 2005 to 2011 to the defendant No.1 towards the sale transaction. The defendant No.2 instituted a suit in OS No.247/2014 against the defendant No.1 for specific performance of the said agreement dated 14.03.2005 and the said suit in OS No.247/2014 culminated in a compromise decree dated 23.07.2014 under which the defendant No.1 undertook to execute a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 in pursuance of which the defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed dated 04.05.2017 in favour of the defendant No.2 and put him in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

5. Subsequently, the plaintiff instituted the present suit in OS No.203/2017 on 01.09.2017 inter alia contending that the defendant No.1 had executed a sale agreement dated 28.07.2007 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/- and had received an advance consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- and additional payments, in the total sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the defendant No.1 and since the defendant No.1 did not comply with the requests and demands made by the plaintiff to execute and register the sale deed in his favour, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for specific performance of contract and for other reliefs.

6. It was contented that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform this part of the contract and since the defendant No.1 did not come forward to execute a sale deed, the plaintiff instituted the instant suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

7. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed their separate written statement, disputing and denying the various allegations and claims made by the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 inter alia also contended that he was a bonafide purchaser for value from the defendant No.1 without notice of the earlier unregistered agreement said to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Both the defendants contended th