Continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract is essential for obtaining specific performance; mere execution of an agreement and issuance of notices do not suffice.

ORDER :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2017 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 83-A/2015, whereby the learned trial Court has partly allowed and partly dismissed the suit, hence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

2. The plaintiff’s case, in brief, is that the defendant is the owner of the suit house, an LIG unit situated on Khasra No. 293/1 under R.D.A. Scheme No. 27 at Shailendra Nagar, Raipur. The defendant allegedly entered into an agreement to sell the said property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Out of the agreed amount, the plaintiff claims to have paid Rs. 10,00,000/- as part sale consideration. It was further agreed between the parties that the defendant would evict the tenant residing in the suit premises within six months and would obtain requisite permissions from the Raipur Development Authority (R.D.A.) for freehold conversion and sale of the property. The plaintiff asserts that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and was financially capable of paying the balance sale consideration. However, according to the plaintiff, the defendant avoided fulfilling his obligations and displayed no interest in performing his part of the agreement. Although the defendant eventually submitted an application for permission to sell the property, he took no steps to evict the tenant from the suit premises, despite repeated reminders from the plaintiff. It is pleaded that the plaintiff issued legal notices dated 09.04.2012, 27.06.2013, 06.05.2014 and 18.02.2015, calling upon the defendant to comply with the terms of the agreement. As the defendant neither responded nor complied, the plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking specific performance of the contract. The defendant filed a written statement denying execution of the agreement to sell. According to him, the plaintiff is engaged in money-lending and land-transactions. He alleges that he and his sister-in-law had taken a loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the plaintiff and issued a cheque towards securing the said loan. He further claims to have repaid Rs. 1,75,000/- on 26.03.2013, for which the plaintiff obtained a receipt on a non- judicial stamp of Rs. 10/-, witnessed by Ram Kumar Sahu and Master Ashok. The defendant contends that the plaintiff misused his illness to obtain signatures on blank stamp papers and blank NOC forms, and that no agreement to sell was ever executed. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.

3. The trial Court held that execution of the agreement and payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- were proved, and also found that the agreement was not forged. However, the Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform the contract and was therefore not entitled to specific performance or registration of the property in his favour. Despite finding the agreement genuine, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance, but directed the defendant to refund Rs. 4,25,000/- to the plaintiff within two months. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 27.03.2017, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal, contending that the findings of the Court below are illegal, perverse, and unsustainable in law.

4. Learned counsel for the