A plaintiff in a specific performance suit must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations throughout, as mandated by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, J.

1. The present first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the defendants against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.08.2015, passed by the learned 3^rd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 144- A/2010, whereby the decree for specific performance of the contract has been passed in favour of the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties as shown in the civil suit is being referred to in the present appeal.

3. The plaintiff Durga Prasad Koiry filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract of the suit land bearing khasra No. 325/2, area 0.07 acre situated at village Domuhani, P.H. No. 14, Tahsil and District Bilaspur. It is pleaded in the plaint that, the original defendant Santram Yadav had agreed to sell his land with the plaintiff for total consideration of Rs. 80,000/- and an agreement was executed between them on 23.04.2008 and the entire sale consideration was paid to the vendor at that time with the condition that, the sale-deed of the suit land was to be executed, whenever the plaintiff desired and in favour of the person, whose name would be suggested by the plaintiff. Despite asking for the execution of the sale-deed, the defendant has not executed the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff and then on 25.11.2009, he issued a legal notice to the defendant, but he neither replied to the notice nor showed his interest in registration of the sale-deed, and thereafter, the suit for specific performance of the contract was filed on 29.01.2010.

4. The original defendant, Santram Yadav, contested the claim of the plaintiff and filed his written statement, denied the execution of the agreement and receipt of the advance amount and pleaded that, since there was no agreement between the plaintiff and him, there is no question of execution of the sale-deed. During pendency of the suit, the original defendant Santram has died, and thereafter, his legal heirs have been substituted in his place on 06.02.2013 and the LRs of the original defendant Santram filed their written statement additionally with the pleading that Santram Yadav was a government employee and without prior permission from the department, he was not competent to sell his property and he has not entered into any agreement to sell of his land. The agreement produced by the plaintiff is a forged and fabricated document. It is also pleaded that Santram had no right to sell the property, because the suit property was purchased from the amount obtained from the parents of his wife, Smt. Dulauri Yadav, and at the time of its purchase, the sale deed was executed in the name of Santram, and therefore, Santram alone was not competent to sell the land. It is also pleaded that Santram was a habitual drinker, and if he executed any document, the same is being executed under the influence of liquor, and it is illegal and void. No advance amount has been paid to the vendor. The value of the land is more than 7-8 lakhs, but the agreement is said to have been executed for the total consideration of Rs. 80,000/-, which is highly disproportionate. Therefore, no decree for specific performance of the contract can be passed, and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court has framed the following issues:-

6. In support of his case, the plaintiff Durga Prasad Koiry has examined himself as PW-1, Shankarlal Sahu/PW-2, Mukesh Kumar Sahu/PW-3 and relied upon the documents, i.e. exhibit P-1, which is the agreement dated 23.04.2008, exhibit P-2 is the postal receipt, and exhibit P-3 is the acknowledgment.

7. The defendants have examined Smt. Dulauri Yadav/DW-1, Sanjay Yadav/DW-2, Jagdish Singh Chandel/DW-3 and Shammi Yadav/DW-4. The defendants have not relied upon any document.

8. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the respective parties, the learned trial Court decre