The court upheld the principle that a valid agreement for sale warrants specific performance when the plaintiff proves readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M ADIGA, J.

This is the defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2011, passed by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga, (for short, `trial Court'), in O.S.No.133/2006.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that; defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit property and he had agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.33 lakhs and executed a registered Agreement of Sale dated 17.05.2005 in favour of the plaintiff and received advance sale consideration of Rs.30 lakhs; One year’s time was granted to execute the sale deed after receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.3 lakhs.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; He repeatedly requested defendant No.1 to execute the registered Sale Deed after receiving the balance of sale consideration; The defendant No.1 did not come forward to execute the Sale Deed; Plaintiff issued legal notice dated 16.01.2006 calling upon the defendant No.1 to execute the Sale Deed and register the same after receiving of balance of sale consideration; The defendant No.1 neither replied to the said notice nor complied with the terms of the notice; Hence, he was compelled to file the suit. With these reasons, he prayed to decree the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale.

5. Defendants filed common written statement. All the plaint averments were denied. They contended that there were transactions between defendant No.1 and one Basavaraj, a relative of plaintiff; Defendant No.1 had executed registered agreement of sale in the name of plaintiff at the instructions of Basavaraj, in respect of the transaction between himself and Basavaraj; It was a nominal agreement of sale; No consideration was paid to him on the date of alleged agreement of sale; The market value of the said property as on that date was more than Rs.60 lakhs; Plaintiff had no source of income to pay the said amount of earnest money; Said property was also not required to the plaintiff since he was a permanent resident of Tarikere. With these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues :

"(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants agreed to sell the suit property for sale consideration of Rs.33 lakhs and received Rs.30 lakhs as an advance and executed the registered agreement to sell in his favour dt. 13-5-2005?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.3 lakhs and executed the registered sale deed in his favour within one year from the date of agreement of sale?

(3) Whether plaintiff proves that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract?

(4) Whether defendant No.1 proves that he has executed nominal registered agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the transaction between himself and one Basavaraj without receiving any consideration amount?

(5) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

(6) What order or decree?"

7. The trial Court recorded the evidence of both the parties. Plaintiff examined four witnesses as PW-1 to PW-4 and marked the documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-9. Defendants examined two witnesses as DW-1 and DW-2 and no documents were marked.

8. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of both parties and appreciating the pleadings and evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in the affirmative and issue No.4 in the negative.