To secure a decree for specific performance, plaintiffs must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness, supported by credible evidence, amidst a contract that specifies actionable terms.

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 defendant No.1 against the Digitally impugned judgment and decree dated 05.07.2014, passed by learned 3^rd Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 33-A/2013, whereby the decree for specific performance of contract has been passed in favour of the plaintiffs.

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 plaintiffs, Ravindra Jaiswal and Triloki Prasad Bhargava, filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract and for possession of the suit land bearing khasra No. 418/1, area 0.36 acres situated in the village Sakari, P.H. No. 26, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur. It is pleaded in the plaint that, in the year 2008, the Sakri-Turkadih bypass road was constructed and the plaintiffs came into contact with the defendant No.1, who was in need of money and wanted to sell his land, which was situated adjacent to the bypass road. The plaintiffs tentatively get the measurement of the land of the plaintiffs and found that it was only 20-22 dismil land remaining with the defendant No.1 after acquisition of his remaining land for the said bypass road and then an agreement to sell was executed between the parties for total consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs, and on 02.06.2008, the advance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid to the defendant No.1 and agreement was executed. It was the condition in the agreement that, after acquisition of the land by the State Government, whatever land remaining with the defendant No.1, the sale deed is to be executed for the said remaining land on the agreed sale consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs. It was also a condition in the agreement that, the remaining sale consideration is to be paid at the time of registration of the deed and the sale-deed would be registered after completion of the land acquisition proceeding, and before that the documents are to be provided by the defendant No.1 and the sale-deed was to be registered in the name of persons suggested by the plaintiffs. It is also pleaded in the plaint that, within one month of the execution of the agreement in the year 2008 itself, the plaintiffs requested the defendant No.1 for registration of the sale-deed, but the defendant informed that the land acquisition proceeding is still pending and the revenue authorities are not issuing the relevant documents. The defendant No.1 kept them under assurance that the land acquisition proceeding is pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kota, and he is participating in the proceeding regularly, and as and when it will conclude, he would inform them and would execute the sale-deed in their favour. Since the plaintiff No.2 is also the resident of village Sakari, he was well aware of the pendency of land acquisition proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kota and therefore, they waited for conclusion of the land acquisition proceedings. In the month of May 2011, the plaintiffs again requested the defendant for registration of the sale-deed; at that time, he remained stand that the land acquisition proceeding was still not concluded. It is also pleaded that, on 18.01.2012, when the plaintiffs obtained information from the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Kota about the land acquisition proceeding, they came to know that, though the proceeding is not concluded, but the area of the lands of the re