The plaintiff must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance; failure to do so justifies dismissal of the suit.

ORDER :

(Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.)

1. This First Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2019 passed by Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 24-A/2018 (Trilokchandra v. Smt Vidyawati and others) by which learned trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract.

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

3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract mainly contending that:-

(a) The defendant No. 1 is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 61/3 area 0.58 Acre and defendant No. 2 is the owner of land bearing khasra No. 57/1 area 0.54 acre situated at Mangala P.H. No. 21/25, Tahsil and District Bilaspur. (hereinafter referred to suit land). A registered agreement was executed on 08.08.2011 between the plaintiff and the defendants for sale of suit land for total sale consideration of Rs. 48,00,000/-. In pursuance of agreement the plaintiff has paid Rs. 5,00,000/- as advance amount to the defendants.

(b) It has been contended that as per clause of the agreement the plaintiff has to pay the entire sale consideration to the defendant upto 31^st January, 2012 and thereafter the sale deed should be executed either in the name of the plaintiff or any person authorized by the plaintiff within the said period. The agreement further provides that if the plaintiff does not pay the entire sale consideration or execute the sale deed then for every six months he has to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- and the defendants have no objection on it. The agreement further provides that in case the defendants fail to execute the sale deed the plaintiff has liberty to execute the sale deed through the Court.

(c) It has been further contended that in January, 2012 it is brought to the notice of the plaintiff that the suit land was not situated on the road side but they have shown the land which belonged to someone else. It has also been contended that due to acquisition of the land in Arpa Project the suit land will be on the road side and under this impression, he has executed the sale deed but the land has not been acquired in the Arpa project though 6 years has already been lapsed and even the demarcation of the land has also not been done by the defendants. It is also case of the plaintiff that when he made a complaint to the defendants regarding fraud committed by them then they were agreed to execute the sale deed for sale consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/- and on the basis of oral consent the plaintiff became ready but the defendants have not shown their willingness to perform their part of contract and they were in process of selling the land to the other which has compelled the plaintiff to file the suit for specific performance. It is also case of the plaintiff that the defendants have taken Rs. 13,00,000/- from the plaintiff and only Rs. 7,00,000/- was payable to the defendants and the plaintiff is having fund to execute the sale deed but the defendants have not shown their willingness to execute the sale deed and accordingly he has filed the suit for specific performance of contract.

4. The defendant No.1 and 2 have filed their written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint mainly contending that:-

(a) as per clause 2 of the agreement, the agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant on 08.08.2011 for sale consideration of Rs. 48,00,000/- and there is no execution of agreement for sale consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/- for the suit land, as such no specific performance of contract can be ordered by the Court. It has been further contended that they have never given consent to execute the sale deed on less sale consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/-. It has been further contended that they have already demarcated the land on 21.06.2010 and the same has been given to the plaintiff. It ha