The plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to perform the agreement as required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, and the suit must be filed within the limitation period under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

1. This appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenges the judgment passed by the first appellate Court dated 16-9-2010 reversing the judgment passed by the trial Court. Thereby the dismissal of suit for specific performance has been set aside and decree for specific performance of agreement dated 21-4-1988 has been passed.

2. The original defendant was the owner of field Survey No.353 situated at mouza Wadag, District Wardha. On 21-4-1988, he entered into an agreement to sell 3 Hectares 24 R land to the original plaintiff – Goma for a consideration of Rs.31,200/-. Earnest amount paid was Rs.16,000/- and balance consideration of Rs.15,200/- was to be paid by 21-4-1989. It was agreed that permission of the Collector would be obtained by the defendant within said period and if permission was not received by said period, then within one month from receiving such permission, the sale deed would be executed. The possession of the suit field came to be delivered to said Goma on the same day.

3. On 20-11-2000, notice came to be issued by said Goma to the original defendant in which it was stated that he was ready and willing to have the sale deed executed in his favour and hence, the defendant was called upon to execute the sale deed as it was learnt that necessary permission had been obtained. This notice was followed by another notice dated 17-3-2001 again issued to the defendant. As the sale deed was not executed, on 13-6-2001 suit for specific performance of agreement dated 21-4-1988 came to be filed.

4. The original defendant filed his written statement vide Exhibit-13 and raised a plea that the suit was barred by limitation. It was also pleaded that the possession was never handed over to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. Along with the written statement a counter claim was also filed seeking possession of the suit field as according to the original defendant, the plaintiff had taken forcible possession of the suit property. The original plaintiff opposed aforesaid counter claim by filing his written statement at Exhibit-26.

5. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record held that the suit as filed was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The suit, therefore, came to be dismissed. The counter claim came to be allowed and the plaintiff was directed to hand over possession of the suit field to the defendant.

6. The first appellate Court reversed aforesaid decree by holding that the suit was filed within limitation and the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of agreement. It further held that as the plaintiff had issued notices to the defendant, he was entitled for decree for specific performance. Hence, the appeal came to be allowed and the decree for specific performance came to be passed. The said decree was, however, subject to permission being granted by the competent authority.

7. The following substantial questions of law were formulated when the second appeal was admitted.

(i) Whether the original plaintiff established his readiness and willingness to take up the sale-deed as required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and whether the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court that the plaintiff was ready and willing is perverse?

(ii) Whether the suit was clearly barred by limitation provided under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the light of the fact that no steps were taken by the original plaintiff right from 1989 till filing of the suit particularly when the date for performance was fixed in the agreement?

8. Shri N. S. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants – legal heirs of the original defendant submitted that the first appellate Court erred in reversing the decree passed by the trial Court. He submitted that the suit as filed was barred by limitation inasmuc