In a suit for specific performance, plaintiffs must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, supported by cogent evidence; mere assertions are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

This first appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2016 in O.S.No.3/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli (for short, ‘Trial Court’) by which, the appellants/plaintiffs’ suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.01.2011 is dismissed, holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs.5,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.

2. Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, appeal is taken up for final disposal.

3. The parties to the appeal would be referred to as they stand before the Trial Court. Appellants herein were plaintiffs and respondents herein were defendants before the Trial Court.

4. Brief facts are that, the first defendant is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.2 is the wife of first defendant and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are children of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendants offered the suit schedule properties for sale and the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, plaintiffs and defendants entered into sale agreement dated 10.01.2011 in respect of suit schedule properties. Suit schedule properties consists of 3 acres 22 guntas out of 8 acres in Sy.No.12/C2, 2 acres 28 guntas in Sy.No.11/ and 0.25 guntas in Sy.No.10/1, totally 6 acres 35 guntas, situated in Kabbepura Village, Kiragavalu Hobli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District. The total sale consideration was Rs.37,25,000/- out of which, plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- as advance to the defendants. It is stated that in terms of the agreement, four months time was prescribed for completion of sale transaction from the date of furnishing required documents including 11-E sketch. As the defendants could not furnish the required documents within time, at the request of defendants, time to complete the sale transaction was extended by another six months on 03.05.2011. In the meantime, first defendant was required to furnish all revenue documents i.e., RTC, survey map, tax paid receipts and 11-E sketch for verification of title and to prepare the absolute sale deed. Even after completion of extended period of six months time, defendants failed to come forward to furnish the required documents and to execute the registered sale deed. Hence, plaintiffs got issued legal notice on 19.10.2011 to the defendants calling upon them to execute the registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration. Defendants caused untenable reply dated 02.11.2011. Thereafter, defendants caused another notice dated 07.12.2011 calling upon the plaintiffs to pay the balance sale consideration and to get the sale deed registered. Defendants said to have caused one more notice dated 20.01.2012 calling upon the plaintiffs to pay balance sale consideration and to get the absolute sale deed in their favour. Thereafter, plaintiffs got issued one more legal notice dated 05.04.2012 calling upon the defendants to execute registered sale deed by furnishing the required documents in their favour. Thereafter, plaintiffs said to have issued one more legal notice dated 11.07.2012 calling upon the defendants to receive balance sale consideration of Rs.31,65,000/- and to execute absolute sale deed. Defendants on 31.07.2012 issued untenable reply. As the defendants failed to come forward to execute registered sale deed, plaintiffs filed present suit seeking specific performance of agreement dated 10.01.2011 by receivin