JUDGMENT :

1. Appellant has preferred this Appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 31-07-2006 passed by 11th Additional District Judge, FTC, Raipur in Civil Suit No.9-A/2006 whereby and whereunder he partly disallowed his suit.

2. This is admitted by respondents that they are legal heirs of late Manglu Verma, who died on 20.07.2003 at village Nimora.

3. In brief, the appellant's case is that late Manglu Verma was the owner of a house and courtyard situated at village Nimora which are the disputed property. During his lifetime, he executed written agreement with him on 11-12-2000 to sell disputed property for consideration Rs.65,000/-. He paid him Rs.14,010/-. Thereafter, he paid him Rs.6,000/-, Rs.2,500 on account of remaining consideration. He was ready and willing to execute registered sale deed. He made several requests to him and he always assured him. On 09.03.2002 he gave notice to him but he did not reply. After the death of Maglu Verma he requested the respondents to execute the registered sale deed but they did not do so.

4. In brief, the respondents' case is that the relief of specific performance is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Late Manglu Verma had not executed any agreement for sale and not received any consideration. Alleged agreement was not the final agreement for sale and purchase. Late Manglu Verma had not sole right to dispose of disputed property. It is also not signed by the appellant thus it is not enforcible.

5. Point for determination :-

There are following points for determination in the case in hand:-

(i) Whether the appellant had always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of contract vide Ex. P-1 ?

(ii) Whether the appellant had sole right to execute Ex. P-1 ?

(iii) Whether Ex. P-1 is binding upon respondents ?

(iv) Reliefs and costs.

Point for determination No.(i) -Finding with reasons:-

6. As per the provisions of Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963, specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person who fails to prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.

7. P.W. 1 Punit Ram Sahu says in para 7 of his statement given on oath that late Manglu Verma was giving assurances for performance of Registry, when she did not make registry then he approached to Patel, Patel persuaded him, thereafter he called a meeting of Panchayat where villagers and head of the village again persuaded him.

8. P.W. 3 Hem Kumar Dewangan says in para 2 of his statement given on oath that when late Manglu refused to execute the registered sale deed then appellant called the meeting of society, people persuaded him.

9. In the matter of Thakamma Mathew -v- M. Azamathulla Khan and ors. [1993 Suppl. (4) SCC 492] Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down following judicial precedent in para 9 which reads as under :-

“9. …..... In order that decree for specific performance of a contract may be passed it is necessary to consider whether such a relief can be granted in view of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In other words the person seeking such a decree has to satisfy that Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act does not bar the grant of such a relief and the person against whom the decree is passed can show that the relief of specific performance cannot be granted in view of the provisions of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act. Clause (c) of Section 16 postulates that the person seeking specific performance of the contract must file a suit wherein he must aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him....”

10. In the matter of Aniglase Yohannan -v- Ramlatha and ors. [2005(7) SCC 534] Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down following judicial precedent-

“Any pe