Continuous readiness and willingness of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance, as per Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

CM No. 8433/2018 (delay in re-filing of 26 days)

For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

RFA No. 225/2018 & CM No. 8432/2018 (stay)

1. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 27.9.2017 by which the trial court has while dismissing the suit for specific performance granted relief of return of the amount of Rs.7,10,000/- paid along with interest at 18% per annum.

2. The subject suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell with respect to 150 sq. yards out of 300 sq. yards in property no. E-63, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi. Agreement to sell is dated 21.10.2004 and the total sale consideration was Rs.47,50,000/-. A sum of Rs.7,10,000/- was admittedly paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondents/defendants under the agreement to sell. As per the appellant/plaintiff since the respondents/defendants failed to execute the sale deed, therefore after serving a legal notice dated 7.5.2005, the subject suit for specific performance was filed pleading that appellant/plaintiff has already been ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

3. Respondents/defendants contested the suit and filed their written statement and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Respondents/defendants also pleaded right to forfeit the amount of Rs.7,10,000/- on account of breach by the appellant/plaintiff because the appellant/plaintiff is pleaded not to have paid the balance sale consideration in spite of requests made by the respondents/defendants.

4. After pleadings were complete the trial court framed the issues and parties led evidence and which aspects are recorded in paras 10 to 12 of the impugned judgment which read as under:- “10. Vide order dated 21.08.2008, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi where the instant suit was then pending, framed the following issues as : 1. Whether there is any interpolation and unauthorized changes made in the agreement to sell dated 21.10.2004? If, yes the effect and consequences thereof? OPD

2. Whether the defendant had not handed over possession or part possession of the suit property to the plaintiff? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to comply with the terms of the agreement to sell dated 21.10.2004? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance? OPP

5. Relief.

11.Plaintiff in order to prove his case has examined himself as PW1. Plaintiff has relied upon the following documents :

S. No.	Particulars of documents	Exhibition of documents
1	Site Plan	Ex.PW1/1
2	Agreement to Sell dated 21.10.2004	Ex.PW1/2
3	Receipts	Ex.PW1/3 & Ex.PW1/4
4	Legal Notice dated 07.05.2005	Ex.PW1/5
5	Copy of Telegram	Ex.PW1/6
6	Postal Receipt	Ex.PW1/7
7	Speed Post receipt, UPC mentioned as Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/10	Deleted as not filed on record
8	Registered envelopes	Ex.PW1/11 and Ex.PW1/12

12. Defendants in order to prove their case have examined the defendant no.1 as DW-1. The defendants have relied upon the following documents as :-

S. No.	Particulars of documents	Exhibition of documents
1.	Sale Agreement dated 10.10.2004 with Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma	Ex.DW1/1
2.	Receipt executed by Sh. Sanjay Sharma	Ex.DW1/1
3.	Sale Agreement dated 04.11.2004 between the defendant no.2 and one Sh. Sanjay Sharma	Ex.DW1/3
4.	Payment receipt executed by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma.	Ex.DW1/4
5.	Local Commissioner’s report	Ex.PW1/D1
6.	Legal Notice dated 30.04.2005	Ex.DW1/5
7.	Postal receipt	Ex.DW1/6
8.	UPC Receipt	Ex.DW1/7

5. The only issue argued before this Court is as regards denial to the appellant/plaint