IMPORTANT POINT
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

Arvind Kumar Verma, J.

1.The present First Appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 23/02/2017 passed by the VI Additional District Judge Durg, District Durg in Civil Suit No.5624A/2011, whereby the civil suit preferred by the respondent No.1/plaintiff has been allowed.

(For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court)

2.Facts of the case are that respondent no.1/plaintiff Nandkishore Khandelwal filed a suit for specific performance against Mankiyya @ Mudrika Yadav (Defendant No. 1) and cancellation of sale deed made by Mankiyya @ Mudrika Yadav in favour of defendant no.2- Prabhatchand Jain. To claim the aforesaid reliefs it was pleaded that on 18.06.05 the plaintiff entered into an agreement to sale with defendant no.1 for suit property situated at Khasra No.315 Area 10 decimil equivalent to 4300 sq.ft situated in P.H.No.65/19 (Pragati Nagar Risali) District Durg for a sale consideration of Rs.5,41,000/- out of which Rs.1,00,001/- was paid which was duly acknowledged by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed for which a period of one and half month was fixed vide agreement to sale (Ex.P/1). The plaintiff made various requests to execute the sale deed but defendant no.1 had not conceded to the request made by plaintiff therefore the plaintiff on 27.07.05 issued a notice to defendant.1 and also on very same day appeared before the Deputy Registrar Durg and submitted his written objection. The defendant no.1 on 13.09.05 replied the same that the agreement executed between the parties has been canceled and defendant no.1 is free to sale the suit property. On 14.10.05, defendant No.1 executed the sale deed in favour of defendant no.2. Subsequently, on 19.10.05 the plaintiff issued notice to defendant no.1 directing him to appear before the Registrar Office and to execute the sale deed however defendant no.1 had not appeared and ultimately. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract but the defendant no.1 had not performed his part of contract. It was further pleaded that the defendant no.1 in order to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff on 14.10.05 sold the suit property on a lesser value of Rs.3,00,000/- to defendant no.2 whereas defendant no.1 entered the agreement to sale the property to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.5,41,000/- out of which he had already received a sum of Rs. 1,00,001/-. This has been done only to deprive the plaintiff from his legitimate and genuine rights. The defendant no.1 even intimated defendant no.2 about the agreement, even then defendant no.1 & defendant no.2 in collusion with each other to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff, the sale deed was executed in favour of defendant no.2 which is liable to be declared as null and void and plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract dated 18.06.05.

3.Defendant no.1 filed his written statement. The defendant No.1, who was executants of the agreement, had admitted the execution of said agreement dated 18-06-2005. However he denied that he had committed any wrong or breach of stated contract. He added that it is fault of the Plaintiff that he had not made any effort for getting the sale deed registered within the time prescribed under the agreement and, as such, since terms of agreement was not satisfied within the time framed i.e. within one and half month, it is terminated by efflux of time. It is further pleaded that in the notice dated 27.07.2005 it was nowhere mentioned that as to when the sale deed has to be executed. It is specifically mentioned in the written statement that vide notice dated 13.09.2005 it was informed to the Plaintiff regarding termination of contract and after being free from the agreement he had executed the sale deed on 14.10.2005 in favour of defendan