IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of 'readiness' and 'willingness' of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance, as mandated by Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 28-3-2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Raipur, in civil suit No.30-A/2016 whereby the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case, as pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff, in brief, are that the respondent/defendants owned land bearing khasra No.142/2 and 142/4 admeasuring 0.105 hectare at Mouza Gondwara, Tahsil & District Raipur. The defendants entered into an agreement for sale on 5-3-2015 for a sale consideration of Rs. 24.00 lacs; out of that an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs was paid by way of cheque and the remaining amount of Rs. 19.00 lacs was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. According to the plaintiff, to secure the agreement, on different dates he gave different cheques to the defendant and as per the plaintiff, the sale deed was to be executed within six months from 5-3-2015 with a pre condition that before the land was put to sale, the demarcation would be carried out and thereafter, the sale deed would be executed. The plaintiff also pleaded that after receipt of the amount, possession of the land was given to him and he has constructed a boundary wall on that. Despite lapse of six months the defendant did not execute the sale deed, therefore, notices were exchanged and initially, according to the plaintiff, wrong khasra number was shown in the notice, which was subsequently corrected, but despite that the sale deed was not executed, therefore, the suit was filed. The plaintiff stated that he was ready and willing to execute the sale deed, therefore, the decree for specific performance be passed in his favour.

3. The defendants refuted the claim and it was stated that the plaintiff mainly dealing with the lands, as a land broker, therefore, he himself purchased the land. According to the defendant, as per sale agreement dated 5-3-2015 the entire sale consideration should have been paid, but the plaintiff did not pay the same. According to the defendant, the actual sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 45.00 lacs, but at the instance of the plaintiff to save the tax, it was shown to be for Rs. 24.00 lacs. The defendant stated that the sale consideration of Rs. 45.00 lacs would be more appropriate to consider inasmuch as cheque of Rs. 1.00 lac each was given to Vimal, Surya Kumar and Sunita, however, the said cheques were dishonoured for want of money. They stated that the plaintiff did not have the requisite money, which is evident from dishonour of cheques for want of funds. The plaintiff, in fact, was not willing to execute the sale deed and the suit was sought to be dismissed.

4. The learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings framed four issues. Though it admitted the fact that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement on 5-3-2015 for purchase of land bearing khasra No.142/2 and 142/4 for Rs. 24.00 lacs and paid Rs. 5.00 lacs, but the plaintiff was not willing to perform his part of contract, therefore, the suit for specific performance was dismissed. Thus, this appeal by the appellant/plaintiff.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the trial Court has wrongly recorded the finding that time was essence of contract. He would submit that out of Rs. 24.00 lacs of total sale consideration, an amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs was already paid and the agreement (Ex.P/1) would show that the defendant would get the land demarcated in presence of purchaser and if the area is changed then the sale consideration would accordingly be varied. He would further submit that the conduct of the parties would show that time was not essence of contract. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of the parties would show that contrary to the agreement, they stated that the sale deed was to be executed for Rs. 45.00 lacs as per DW-1 Radheshyam Pandey, which was not in accordance with the agreement (Ex.P/1). He would also submi