The main legal point established is that in a suit for specific performance of contract, the plaintiff must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the suit must be filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

ORDER :

Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2014 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Civil Suit No.11-A/2013, whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance of contract. The parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their descriptions before the Court below.

2. The facts, which are essential for adjudication of this appeal, are that a suit for specific performance of contract was instituted by the plaintiff on 05.09.2013 alleging, inter alia, that the defendants No.1 & 2, who have inherited the land in question bearing Khasra No.2945 admeasuring 0.06 acres constructed with an old house situated at Sadar Road, Ambikapur, upon the sad demise of their father-Krishna Chand Gupta agreed to alienate the same to him by executing an agreement to sale dated 07.06.2008 for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-, upon receiving the earnest amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The alleged agreement was in existence for a period of one year and within the said period, the vendors/defendants No.1 & 2 were required to obtain the permission from the competent authority for its alienation and to execute the registered deed of sale in his favour upon receiving the balance amount of sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/-and it stipulates further that in case, the registered deed of sale is not executed within a period of one year, it will then ceased to exist and the earnest amount, so paid, shall be forfeited. It is pleaded further that in pursuance to the alleged agreement to sale, an application was moved by defendants No.1 & 2 on 12.08.2008 before the Nazul Officer, Ambikapur, seeking no objection certificate for its alienation and during its pendency, a general power of attorney was executed and registered in his favour by defendants No.1 & 2 on 19.08.2008 authorizing him for alienation of the suit land and have received the entire sale consideration from him as well on the said date itself. It is pleaded further that in the said proceedings, an objection was raised by one Shatrughan Swarnkar S/o Rambali Swarnkar by alleging that he had already agreed to purchase the suit land from its co-owner namely Girija Shankar under an agreement to sale dated 02.11.2006 and after considering the same, the said application made on 12.08.2008 was rejected by the said authority on 24.07.2009.

2.1 Further contention of the plaintiff is that on 12.09.2012, defendants No.1 & 2 have moved an application before the Nazul Officer, Ambikapur seeking permission for alienation of the land in question to one Jai Hanuman Infrastructure Private Limited Company through its Proprietor Anil Agrawal (the defendant No.3 herein) and despite the objection being raised by the plaintiff on the basis of the alleged agreement to sale dated 07.06.2008, it was allowed by the said authority vide its order dated 04.07.2013 and no objection certificate has been granted while permitting them (defendants No.1 & 2) for the alienation of the suit land in favour of said Jai Hanuman Infrastructure Private Limited Company through its Proprietor and accordingly, the registered deed of sale was executed on 14.07.2013 which led to the institution of the suit in the instant nature, instituted on 05.09.2013 by saying that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract to purchase the suit land on the basis of the alleged agreement to sale dated 07.06.2008.

3. In reply to the aforesaid claim, it is pleaded by defendants No.1 & 2/vendors that the alleged agreement to sale was valid only for a period of one year commencing with effect from 07.06.2008 up to 06.06.2009, but, the plaintiff has failed to perform his part of the contract du