IMPORTANT POINT
In order to obtain specific performance of a contract, the plaintiff must prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, as mandated by Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT :

Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

1. This is Plaintiff's First Appeal preferred under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2019 passed by the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, C.G. in Civil Suit No.128-A/2015, whereby the suit for specific performance of contract has been allowed partly.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 04.12.2013, the defendants entered into an agreement (Ex.P-1) with the plaintiff for sale and purchase of their land bearing Khasra No.747/2 and 1447/1 area 0.065 and 0.0154 hectares situated at PH No.29 (19/29) R.I. Circle Bilaspur (for short, 'the suit land'). It is pleaded that under the said agreement, out of total sale consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- has been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants as earnest money and the defendants agreed to get prepared documents for execution and registration of sale-deed in plaintiff's favour within a period of five months. It was further pleaded that as per agreement dated 04.12.2013, the defendants/respondents shall handover the vacant possession of the land after getting demarcation done, however, the defendants failed to get the relevant documents prepared within a stipulated period of five months and have been avoiding execution of sale-deed on one pretext or other, which has prompted the plaintiff to send a legal notice on 13.03.2015 to the defendants calling upon them to execute and register the sale-deed in his favour within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of notice. In reply to notice, the defendants sent a notice dated 18.03.2015 refusing to comply with the demand made by the plaintiff and accordingly cancelled the agreement executed between them, the information of which was conveyed to the plaintiff by way of publication dated 19.03.2015. The plaintiff has, therefore, been constrained to file the suit in the instant nature praying for execution to register the sale-deed in respect of land in question and, in alternative, prayed for a direction to the defendants to register the sale-deed in his favour after receiving the balance sale consideration from him as agreed between the parties under the agreement.

3. The defendants filed their written statement denying the case of the plaintiff. It has been specifically pleaded that all the necessary revenue documents have been made available to the plaintiff which were got verified by the plaintiff through Patwari concerned. It has also been put forth that the land in question was also shown to the plaintiff and after satisfying himself, the plaintiff entered into agreement. It has also been pleaded that the defendants were always ready and willing to execute the sale-deed as they were in dire need of the money for the marriage of one of family members and for this reason, they also got prepared all the documents within time so that sale-deed can be executed timely, but it was the plaintiff who failed to get the sale-deed registered in his favour within the agreed period and for this reason, the defendants cancelled the agreement. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. In order to establish the claim, the plaintiff has examined himself as well as two of his witnesses namely Bharat Singh and Parmeshwar Sahu, while defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 have examined themselves in order to counter the claim of the plaintiff.

5. Learned trial Court based on the pleadings and evidence of the respective parties has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to grant of decree of specific performance of contract against the defendants, however, entitled to receive the advance amount from the defendants jointly and severally. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court is perverse and not sustainable in law. Th