The court reinforced that specific performance can be granted if the plaintiff proves readiness to perform, regardless of price escalation, citing a precedent that supports enforcing agreements despite market value changes.

JUDGMENT :

V SRISHANANDA, J.

Plaintiff in O.S.No.1777/2006 is the appellant challenging the decreeing of the suit in part, whereby suit for specific performance is dismissed and plaintiff was entitled to recover sum of Rs.95,000/- which was paid as part consideration with interest at 18% per annum from the date of agreement till its actual realisation.

2. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant for the sake of convenience as per their original rankings before the trial Court.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

4. Plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell dated 14.02.1991 with defendant in respect of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.50/4 to an extent of four acres of Maralakunte village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. (more fully described in the schedule to the plaint, which is extracted hereunder and hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’).

All that part and parcel of the property bearing Survey No.50/4 to an extent of 4 Acres (Akara 12.25) situate at Maralakunte Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, and bounded on:

5. Under the suit agreement, the total consideration was fixed in a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- at the rate of Rs.32,500/- per acre. It is further contented that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his portion of the contract and has advanced major portion of sale consideration in a sum of Rs.95,000/- and he had agreed to pay the balance consideration amount at the time of registration of the sale deed.

6. It is also contended that there was failure on the part of the defendant to perform his portion of the contract. Therefore, a legal notice was issued by the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed in terms of the sale agreement.

7. Plaint averments would further reveal that despite such legal notice, there is no compliance and therefore suit for specific performance is filed.

8. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed written statement.

9. Defendant admitted his ownership over the suit property, but denied all other averments including the endorsement in the suit agreement.

10. It is further contented that plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his portion of the contract and in the agreement, time fixed for execution of the sale deed was only one week and plaintiff having failed to get the sale deed executed, the agreement stood cancelled automatically. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

11. Defendant also maintained that he had repaid the advance amount and in that regard, a document came into existence.

12. Defendant further contended that on 08.10.1991, he entered into an agreement of sale with A.K. Chandrasekhar Reddy agreeing to sell the property bearing Sy.No.100/2, measuring 2 acres 4 guntas and sold the same in a sum of Rs.75,000/- and on the same day defendant received advance amount of Rs.30,000/- and on 10.10.1991 he paid advance amount to the plaintiff.

13. Based on the rival contentions, learned trial Judge raised the following issues:

1. Whether plaintiff proves the execution of the agreement of sale dt. 14-02-1991 and the receipt of consideration by the defendant as alleged in the plaint?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit land as alleged in the plaint?

3. What relief the plaintiff is entitled?

4. What order