The plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract for specific performance, which was not established in this case due to the failure to show evidence of intention and timely action.

JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.

1. This is defendants’ Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 4-2- 2017 passed by the District Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara, CG in Civil Appeal No. 08-A/2015 by which the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 30-9-2015 passed by Civil Judge, Class-1, Bemetara, District Bemetara in Civil Suit No.05-A/2013 (Annexure A/2) has been dismissed.

2. This appeal has been admitted by this Court on 21-10-2024 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the plaintiff succeeded to prove willingness to perform his part and the Court below justified in holding that the plaintiff was ready to perform his part whereas no notice, was issued to the defendants?.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to hereinafter as per their status shown in the Civil Suit No. 5-A/2013.

4. Brief Facts reflected from the plaint averments are that:

A. The plaintiff filed a suit before learned Civil Judge Class-1, Bemetara on 17-6-2013 for specific performance of contract mainly contending that the agreement dated 24.04.2007 was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant in presence of two witnesses for sale of the land bearing Khasra No. 248/5 measuring 0.130 hectare of agricultural land situated at village Rajkudi, Patwari Halka No. 13, Tehsil and District Bemetara which is owned by the defendants for total sale consideration of Rs.35,340/- out of which Rs.30,000/- was paid to the defendants as advance and remaining amount of Rs.5,340/- was payable at the time of execution of the sale deed. It is also case of the plaintiff that there is inter se dispute between the defendants and their family members, therefore, revenue records have not been corrected, as such, it was agreed between the parties that as soon as the revenue records are separated, the sale deed will be executed and if seller is unable to execute the sale deed the purchaser will execute the sale deed through the Court proceedings.

B. It is also the case of the plaintiff that in view of the order passed by the Tahsildar, partition has already been taken place on 8-9-2010 between the family members of defendants, as such, agreement has to be executed as soon as revenue records are separated but even after lapse of two years, they have not executed the sale deed which has necessitated the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of contract.

5. The defendants have filed their written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and it was contended that the property was recorded in the name of Gendram, therefore, defendants No. 1 to 3 have not executed any agreement nor any possession has been given. It is also the case of the defendant that there was no necessity of money, as such no agreement was executed by them. It has also been denied that Rs.30,000/- was paid in cash to them and alleged transaction of Rs. 5,450/- is not related to sell of the suit property. It is denied that who has returned the receipt is not known to the defendant and no money has been given to either defendant No. 1 or other defendants. It has also been contended that the actual value of suit property is Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre at the time of execution of the agreement. As such, on the sale consideration shown by the plaintiff, it is not feasible to execute the sale deed. It has also been contended that the plaintiffs have assaulted the family members of the defendant when