For specific performance of a contract, a plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to fulfill obligations; lack of proof permits a valid third-party sale by the original seller.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 05.01.2012 passed in RA.No.45/2008 by the District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur (for short, 'the first Appellate Court'), wherein the said appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2008 passed in O.S.No.32/2000 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Chikkaballapura (for short, 'the trial Court'), dismissing the Suit, but held plaintiff to be entitled to refund of advance earnest deposit amount.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. During the course of this appeal, both the respondents died and their legal representatives have been brought on record.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.32/2000 against the defendants for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 05.02.1997.

4.1 It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 being the owner of the suit schedule property, offered to sell the same to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,75,000/-. Pursuant to execution of the agreement of sale on 05.02.1997, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance and that defendant No.1 put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute the registered sale deed within three months from the date of sale agreement. It is the further case of the plaintiff that in the month of June, 1997, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid to defendant No.1 through Mr.A.Raju, who is none other than the grand son-in-law of defendant No.1. It is further case of the plaintiff that after paying further advance of Rs.25,000/-, the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract. However, since defendant No.1 did not perform her part of contract, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.32/2000 on 27.03.2000.

4.2 The defendants filed written statements denying the averments made in the plaint. However, defendant No.1 admitted the sale agreement dated 05.02.1997 and receipt of Rs.10,000/-. Defendant No.2 filed written statement claiming that he has purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No.1 for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.80,000/- through a registered sale deed dated 18.02.2000. Therefore, he is a bona fide purchaser and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

4.3 On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has paid Rs.35,000/- to the defendant towards earnest money apart from the amount shown in the sale agreement entered into between her and the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of contract?

3. Whether the defendant proves that she has incurred heavy loss as plaintiff did not come forward to get the sale deed executed by paying the remaining compensation amount and therefore she sold the property to the another person for lessor consideration amount?

4. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is bared by time?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitling for specific enforcement of agreement of sale entered into between her and the defendant?

6. To what decree or order the parties entitle to?

Addl.Issues: -

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that on the date of agreement of sale 1^st defendant put the plaintiff in possession of suit schedule properties?

2) Whether the 2^nd defendant pr