Specific performance requires proof of continuous readiness and willingness by the plaintiff, and failure to demonstrate this justifies denial of relief.

JUDGMENT :

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed seeking to challenge the Judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2014 in O.S.No.544/2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Nelamangala (“Impugned Judgment”). By the Impugned Judgment, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance has been decreed by the learned Trial Court with costs.

2. The decree was stayed by the predecessor bench of this Court by an order dated 04.03.2015.

3. Briefly the facts are, that a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 01.06.2004 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff directing the appellants/defendants to execute a sale deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff upon receipt of the balance sale consideration amount. In the alternative, the relief for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,59,688/- along with interest was sought for.

3.1. It was the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the property bearing Survey Nos.120, sub-divided as Survey Nos.120/1, 120/2, 120/3 and 120/5 measuring to an extent of 4 acres 27 guntas, situated at Shivanapura Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’) belonged to one Anjanappa, who was the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants/defendants. The appellants/defendants intended to sell and the respondent/plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property for a consideration of Rs.30,38,750/-. The agreement to sell also set out that the part sale consideration of Rs.7,59,688/- was paid by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellants/defendants. A period of six months was fixed for the execution of the sale deed.

3.2. The conditions of the agreement to sell also required the respondent/plaintiff to pay further amount of 25% of the sale consideration within three months and appellants/defendants were required to survey the suit property and produce the documents before the Sub-Registrar as per the survey measurement.

3.3. However, since the appellants/defendants failed to survey the suit property and fix the boundaries and undertake obligations in terms of the agreement, the respondent/plaintiff was constrained to send a legal notice dated 23.03.2006. Subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for the following reliefs:

a) “to grant a decree for specific performance of the agreement dt. 1/6/2004 by directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property by receiving the balance sale consideration amount within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court;

b) if for any reason the defendants failed and neglects to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration in time to be stipulated period by this Hon'ble Court, the plaintiff be permitted to deposit the balance sale consideration after deducting the court costs and other expenses as may be ordered by this Hon'ble Court and to obtain execution of sale deed through the court at the costs of the defendants;

c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and to put the plaintiff in physical vacant possession of the property against the registration of the sale deed, failing which this Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint a Court Commissioner at the costs of the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff by removing any obstructor or obstruction claiming in trust of the defendants;

d) that for the any reason th