The plaintiff's continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as well as the concept of unjust enrichment, were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 20-1-2017 passed by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in civil suit No.354-A/2014 whereby the suit for specific performance was decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

2. The instant appeal is by the legal heirs of original seller namely; Late Heeralal Awasthi (died on 14-10-2012), who entered into an agreement for sale of a land to the plaintiff/respondent No.1.

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against the legal heirs of Heeralal Awasthi (since deceased). The suit having been decreed in favour of the plaintiff, the instant appeal is by the legal heirs of Heeralal. The plaintiff Kamal Kishore Chhabra filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the legal heirs of Heeralal, pleading, inter alia, that on 3-10-2011 the plaintiff entered into an agreement with Heeralal to purchase the plot bearing No.21 & 22/2 admeasuring 629 sq.ft. for a sale consideration of Rs.16,94,000/-. Late Heeralal wanted to sell the property and in lieu thereof part performance amount of Rs.2.00 lacs was received and thereafter an agreement was executed. Subsequently, Heeralal died on 14-10-2012 and the names of legal heirs of Heeralal were subsequently recorded in the nazul records in the year 2014. After the names of legal heirs were recorded, since sale deed was not being executed as per terms of the agreement, a legal notice was served through the counsel to get the sale deed registered, but eventually the sale deed having not been executed the suit for specific performance was filed. Plaintiff pleaded that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract but because from initial stage Heeralal was not keeping well, as such, sale deed could not be executed. It was stated that since the legal heirs failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff raised a doubt that they wanted to usurp the amount of Rs.2.00 lacs, as such, the suit was filed.

4. The appellant/defendant herein denied the execution of agreement and it was further stated that Heeralal was not the sole and exclusive owner of the land, but the plaintiff wanted to get the sale deed executed in his name on the basis of a forged and fabricated agreement. The defendant claimed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and one Sadhuram Hirani as PW-2. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defendant. Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence, decreed the suit for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff.

6. (a) Mr. Manoj Paranjape, learned counsel appearing with Mr. Anushul Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per the agreement dated 3-10-2011 (Ex.P/1) the time was the essence of contract and as per the agreement the sale deed was to be executed by 31-1-2012. The initial seller Heeralal, who entered into agreement for the alleged sale, died on 14-10-2012 and during the life time of Heeralal, it was nothing on record that what steps were taken by the plaintiff to show his readiness and willingness to perform the contract. Referring to contents of agreement (Ex.P/1), learned counsel would submit that at the time of initial agreement, an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs was paid by cash and an amount of Rs.4.00 lacs was handed over in the form of cheque, which got bounced, therefore, the initial agreement of sale itself was not acted upon.

(b) Learned counsel would further submit that no specific pleading has been made as per the provisions of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1963’) with regard to readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed. He would also submit that in respect of the averments that the cheque which was bounced on account of insufficiency of funds, no whisper has been made either in the pleadings or in the evidence. He would submit that there is nothing on record to show that all the efforts were done by the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed and