The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as well as the importance of presenting consistent and reliable evidence in property disputes.

JUDGMENT

1. In this appeal a challenge is raised to the judgment and decree dtd. 16/09/2017 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-5, Nagpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No.333 of 2015 dismissing the appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dtd. 02/05/2015 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 3087 of 2012, dismissing the suit for declaration, Specific Performance of Contract and Injunction.

2. The brief facts of the present case are as follows: (The parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.)

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was owned by defendant No.1 (The defendant No.1 died during pendency of the suit). The defendant No.1 wanted to sell the suit property and as such, since the plaintiff wanted to purchase the same to settle in Nagpur, they entered into an agreement to sell of the suit property for the total consideration of Rs.4,75,000.00, out of which the plaintiff paid Rs.2,00,000.00 to defendant No.1 on 06/05/2004. The possession was agreed to be delivered on payment of entire consideration amount.

4. It is submitted that the defendant No.1 had told the plaintiff to pay Rs.1,25,000.00, out of balance consideration amount, to Vinod Laxman Sawarkar since he was possessing some portion of the suit property. The plaintiff paid Rs.1,25,000.00 to Vinod on 08/09/2004. On 11/09/2004, the defendant No.1 acknowledged the receipt of entire consideration amount of Rs.4,75,000.00. Since execution of sale-deed would require compliance of some formalities, the defendant No.1 executed irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff for that purpose. The possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff started paying the taxes as owner of the suit property.

5. It is submitted that the defendant No.1 tried to deprive the plaintiff from enjoyment of the suit property. Despite it was duty of the defendant to execute the sale-deed, defendant No.1 failed to do so. With these contentions, the plaintiff had filed the suit.

6. It is submitted that the original defendant No.1 filed written statement at Exh.25. He categorically denied all the contentions of the plaintiff except that the defendant had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.4,75,000.00 by accepting earnest money of Rs.2,00,000.00. According to the defendant, the balance consideration amount was to be paid within four months. On 08/06/2004, the defendant had sent a notice to the plaintiff to pay balance consideration amount. The plaintiff did not pay the same within stipulated time. Thus, the agreement stood cancelled in view of its terms.

7. The plaintiff's suit for declaration, specific performance of contract and permanent injunction came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dtd. 02/05/2015, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 3087 of 2012. The plaintiff therefore, carried an appeal vide Regular Civil Appeal No. 333 of 2015 before the learned Ad-hoc District-5, Nagpur, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dtd. 16/09/2017, the same is assailed in the present appeal.

8. This Court, on 15/11/2021 framed the following substantial questions of law :

"I) Whether the courts below were justified to have dismissed the suit, though it is recorded that the agreement of sale executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff has been proved, so also that both the court have recorded a finding that there is no dispute about respect of an amount of Rs.2.00 Lakhs being paid by the plaintiff to the original Defendant No.1 and that the learned trial Court has also recorded that the plaintiff has made payment of Rs.1,25,000.00 to the son of Defendant No.1?

II) Whether the appellate Court was justified to have held that the possession letter at Exh.46 is not admissible in evidence in absence of its registration, though the said document is proved in cross