The judgment establishes that readiness and willingness to perform a contract, as well as compliance with the terms of the agreement, are essential for seeking specific performance.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 23.12.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant/plaintiff with respect to the Agreement to Sell dated 27.2.2004 for half portion of the property bearing no. F-36, DSIDC Industrial Complex, Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110041. Though trial court has dismissed the suit for specific performance but the trial court has granted a money decree to the appellant/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum as this was the amount paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 under the agreement to sell.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 entered into the subject Agreement to Sell dated 27.2.2004 for the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.44,50,000/-. An amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 at the time of entering into the agreement to sell and further amounts totaling to Rs.7,00,000/- were paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 in March,2004 thereby totaling to a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- paid by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1. Appellant/plaintiff claimed that respondent no.1/defendant no.1 committed breach and did not execute the sale deed of the suit property in favour of the appellant/plaintiff in spite of the fact that appellant/plaintiff had issued various letters and notices. Appellant/plaintiff pleaded to have given a notice dated 19.10.2004 in this regard and on 27.10.2004 appellant/plaintiff claimed to have reached the office of the Sub-Registrar with the stamp papers and the pay orders for the next installments of 25% of Rs.12 lacs which were to be paid by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 to DSIDC but the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 did not turn up. Appellant/plaintiff thereafter pleads to have sent a legal notice dated 8.11.2004 and the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 is pleaded to have sent notice to the appellant/plaintiff dated 25.11.2004 and which was replied by the appellant/plaintiff vide her reply dated 11.12.2004. Appellant/plaintiff also pleaded that DSIDC, which was to transfer the suit property to respondent no.1/defendant no.1, was informed of the aforesaid facts by the letter dated 7.12.2004. Since as per the appellant/plaintiff the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 was threatening to sell the suit property, the subject suit was filed.

3. The suit was opposed by the respondent nos.1 and 2/defendant nos. 1 and 2. Respondent no.1/defendant no.1 is the wife of the respondent no.2/defendant no.2. It was pleaded in the written statement that appellant/plaintiff is guilty of making interpolation in the Agreement to Sell dated 27.2.2004 (Ex.PW1/4) because the expression “within 4 months” in para 2 of the agreement to sell of payment having to be made by the appellant/plaintiff to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 was illegally scored out and the actual facts are that the appellant/plaintiff had to complete the transaction by making payment of the balance amount on or before 27.6.2004 but the appellant/plaintiff failed to complete the transaction as appellant/plaintiff did not have the balance sale consideration. It was pleaded that respondent no.1/defendant no.1 wrote her letters dated 2.6.2004 and 15.6.2004 to the appellant/plaintiff to pay the balance amount before 27.6.2004, but in spite of receipt of these letters the appellant/plaintiff failed to complete the transaction before the last due date of 27.6.2004. It was pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform part of the agreement as she could not arrange the balance sale consideration. Suit was therefore prayed to be dismissed.

4. After