The courts upheld the validity of the sale agreement and granted specific performance due to the plaintiff's readiness and willingness amid the defendant's unsubstantiated claims of a separate transaction.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of specific performance of sale agreement is that defendants have executed an unregistered agreement of sale dated 19.03.2009 and received an earnest money of Rs.4,50,000/- and balance payable is Rs.50,000/- at the time of registration and in the agreement, a stipulation is made that after getting the document of sketch, the sale deed will be executed. It is also the contention of the plaintiff in the suit that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. When the defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed, he had issued the legal notice and then without any other alternative, filed the suit for the relief of specific performance. The defendants appeared and filed written statement stating that no such agreement was executed and the plaintiff was having a chit transaction with one Venkatesh and handed over the blank stamp papers to the plaintiff and he was made use of the same for the purpose of filing this case and created the sale agreement and filed the suit.

4. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also examined two attesting witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and also examined the advocate who identified the signatures as PW4 and also examined the notary as PW5 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P13. On the other hand, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 comes to the conclusion that attesting witnesses evidence is very clear with regard to the very execution of the document. In paragraphs 21 to 23 also taken note of admission on the part of DW1 that signature belongs to him as well as he had signed the said document on the very date of the agreement. The defence that they have produced the documents of Ex.D1 to D5 but that is not in respect of transaction between the plaintiff and defendants. The defence which was taken by the defendants also discussed in paragraph 27 and comes to the conclusion that agreement was executed and paid the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and balance is payable only Rs.50,000/- and answered Issue No.1 in the affirmative and Issue No.3 in the negative and Issue No.2 is also taken note of with regard to the readiness and willingness is concerned that notice was issued before the period of 3 years even though there was no time limit which is the essence of the contract and answered Issue No.2 in the affirmative and granted the relief of specific performance.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.76/2020. The First Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record, formulated the Points with regard to the execution of sale agreement and also whether it was a transaction of collusion between Purushotham and Venkatesh and whether Ex.P1 was created and whether the plaintiff proved the willingness to get the relief of specific performance. The First Appellate Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered the Point Nos.1 to 3 as negative and answered Point No.4 as affirmative. The First Appellate Court while answering the P