IMPORTANT POINT
Specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property can be granted even if the final layout has not been sanctioned, provided the plaintiff has proven the existence of the agreement and his readiness to perform.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Second Appeal deserve an admission on the following substantial questions of law :-

(L) Whether the Lower Appellate Court, was justified in not appreciating that general rule is to grant specific performance unless strong equities lie against the Plaintiff? In the present matter, in fact equities lie in favour of the appellant/plaintiff ?

(M) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was perverse in holding that the Plaintiff must prove that he possessed Rs.5,51,000.00 in cash at the relevant time and he was having payment potential and capacity on the date of agreement to pay that amount to Defendant No.17?

(N) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was perverse in holding that the Plaintiff ought to have filed his bank statement or income tax record to prove his financial capacity? and whether the Lower Appellate Court was perverse in drawing adverse inference against the Appellant/Plaintiff for non-production of such record, so as to dismiss his suit for specific performance?

2. Admit.

3. By consent, Appeal is taken up for hearing finally since the parties have placed on record the private paper book/ compilation of documents.

4. The Second Appeal is filed by the original plaintiff, being aggrieved by the judgment of the District Judge-6, Nashik in Regular Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2017, thereby dismissing his First Appeal and allowing the cross objection filed by the original defendant, thereby declining a decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff as claimed by him in Special Civil Suit No.197 of 2007.

5. In order to appreciate the questions of law as formulated above, it would be necessary to refer to the necessary facts giving rise to the said question.

6. The Suit property was described in paragraph no.1 of the plaint of Special Civil Suit No.197 of 2007 instituted by the plaintiff, being plot no.7, admeasuring 496.64 sq.m in Survey No.28/2.

Plaintiff pleaded that the original owner of the suit property is one Sou Sanghamitra Khatua and her name was recorded in the land records as "owner ". She entered into a development agreement and also executed general Power of Attorney on 9/11/2001 in favour of one Ratan Hiraji Deore (defendant no.1) vide a document registered with Sub-Registrar of Assurance, Nashik. The said agreement as well as the general Power of Attorney authorize the defendant no.1 to enter into the agreement with any person and the defendant no.1 exercised this right, since he was desirous of developing his land at native place and therefore, wanted to sell the property.

The plaintiff expressed his intention to purchase the property and negotiations between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 resulted in execution of an agreement for sale on 6/10/2005 which is the focal point of the proceedings between the parties. The agreement of sale amongst other conditions included a condition for payment of consideration of Rs.6,51,000.00 for the property and the claim of the plaintiff is on the very date of execution of the agreement to sell, he parted with consideration of Rs.5,51,000.00 in cash as a part consideration/earnest money. The agreement contemplate a sale deed to be executed within a period of one month of obtaining the necessary permission under the Ceiling Act, the onus of which was cast upon the defendant no.1. Pleading that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to purchase the suit property, but since the defendant no.1 avoided the completion of the transaction and assured that it is a matter of time when the sale would be completed, the plaintiff issued a notice on 3/3/2007 to the defendant no.1 for completion of the transaction as per the agreement of sale, which was responded to, by the defendant by taking a stand of complete denial. The plaintiff also gained knowledge that the defendant no.1 had already executed a document on 15/12/2006 in favour of defendant no.2 and on obtaining the necessary documents entered into by the defendant no.1 with defendant no.2 in form of a development agr