The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of continuous possession, payments, and expressions of readiness and willingness in specific performance cases, as well as the burden of proof regarding the essence of time in the contract.

T.V. NALAWADE, J.

1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 77/1986, which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shripur and against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 151/1996, which was pending in District Court, Dhule. The suit filed by present appellant for relief of specific performance of contract of sale of agricultural land is dismissed by the Courts below. The Appellate Court has given direction to defendant to return back the earnest money, but the plaintiff is held to be liable to pay the mesne profit. Both the sides are heard.

2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows:-

The suit was filed in respect of 6 Acre portion of agricultural land bearing Gat No. 69/A situated at village Sangvi, Tahsil Shripur, District Dhule. The portion is eastern side of the property and on western side of this portion, there is remaining portion of Gat No. 69/A belonging to defendant. There is a well situated in the land Gat No. 69/A.

3. Defendant Sitram had agreed to sell the suit property to plaintiff for the consideration of Rs. 22,000/-. The right to take water from aforesaid well was also to be sold for this consideration. The agreement was made prior to the date of execution of document and the document was executed on 23.1.1979. Part of the consideration, Rs. 5,000/- was already paid by plaintiff to defendant and it was considered in the document dated 23.1.1979. It is the case of plaintiff that till the date of suit, plaintiff had paid the total consideration of Rs. 20,200/-. It is the case of plaintiff that he is illiterate person and in his diary, the defendant has given written acknowledgments, showing that plaintiff had paid the consideration in parts to the defendant.

4. It is the case of plaintiff that on 15.5.1986 and even prior to that, he requested to defendant to accept the remaining consideration viz. Rs. 1800/- and to execute the sale deed, but defendant gave false notice of termination of contract dated 23.5.1986 and cause of action took place for the suit. It is the case of plaintiff that he has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he is ready to pay the remaining amount of consideration and he is ready to bear the expenses of execution of sale deed. The suit was filed on 13.8.1986.

5. Defendant Sitram filed written statement on 27.2.1987 and he contested the matter. Firstly, he admitted that he had agreed to sell the suit property and he had also given possession of the suit property to plaintiff as he had agreed to sell the property to plaintiff. In alternate, he took many defences to show that he was contesting the matter.

6. Defendant contended that he and his son Chagan jointly own the land Gat No. 69/A and so, he alone cannot be ordered to sell the suit property to plaintiff and for that reason, the suit is not tenable.

7. It is the case of defendant that as per the provisions of Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, it was necessary to obtain permission of authority created under that Act to sell the property to plaintiff and no such permission was obtained. It is the case of defendant that agreement dated 23.1.1979 is against the provisions of aforesaid Act and it is void. He contended that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant relief of specific performance in view of the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the only authority like Tahsildar can take decision on such dispute. He requested to refer the matter to Tahsildar.

8. The defendant contended that plaintiff did not show readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. He contended that specific dates were mentioned in the agreement for making payments of installments of consideration, but the payments were not made on or before the specified dates by the plaintiff. He contended that as the consideration was not paid within the time fixed in the contract, the contract was