The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as well as the need for credible documentary evidence of financial capacity under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(CPC) is filed by the defendants in the suit(legal heirs of the original defendant Smt. Poonam, who was the wife and mother of the present appellants) impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 17.12.2016 by which trial court has decreed the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent/plaintiff with respect to the Agreement to Sell dated 4.12.2007 for the suit property being the first floor of property no.A-3/60, khasra no.76/10, in the revenue estate of Village Hastsal, Delhi abadi now known as Uttam Nagar on a plot of land of 100 sq yds.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for specific performance pleading that the Agreement to Sell dated 4.12.2007 was entered into between the parties with respect to the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.12 lacs out of which the respondent/plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.8 lacs to Smt. Poonam. The balance amount of Rs.4 lacs was payable on or before 4.6.2008 when the sale documents were to be executed. On the failure of Smt. Poonam to execute the sale documents, after serving a Legal Notice dated 27.10.2008 the subject suit for specific performance was filed.

3. In the written statement filed by Smt. Poonam, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants/defendants, execution of the Agreement to Sell was denied. It was stated that the respondent/plaintiff was a complete stranger to Smt. Poonam and that Smt. Poonam never signed any Agreement to Sell with the respondent/plaintiff. Documents relied upon by the respondent/plaintiff were pleaded to be fabricated documents. Smt. Poonam contended that in fact the Agreement to Sell document is a document which is another document executed for 'another person'. The suit was prayed to be dismissed.

4. After pleadings were complete, trial court framed issues and parties led evidence and these aspects are stated in paras 4 and 5 of the impugned judgment and which paras read as under:-

“4. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed on 07.04.2010:-

(i) Whether no agreement to sell dated 04.12.2007 was executed between plaintiff and defendant and same is forged and fabricated? OPD

(ii) Whether no amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was received by the defendant? OPD

(iii) Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of agreement? OPP

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance and possession of suit property? OPP

(v) Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

(vi) Relief

5. To prove his case plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 who relied upon following documents:- 1. Ex.PW-1/A is agreement to sell dated 04.12.2007. 2. Ex.PW-1/B is receipt dated 04.06.2008. 3. Ex.PW-1/C is legal notice dated 27.10.2008. 4. Ex.PW-1/D is postal receipt. 5. Ex.PW-1/E are two acknowledgement cards.

6. Ex.PW-1/F is plaint of the suit. Sh. Shyam Sunder husband of deceased defendant was examined as DW-1.”

5. The first issue to be examined by this Court is as to whether or not there was an Agreement to Sell dated 4.12.2007 between the parties. In this regard, the respondent/plaintiff filed and proved on record the Agreement to Sell dated 4.12.2007 as Ex.PW1/A. Smt. Poonam filed her affidavit by way of evidence but she died before her cross-examination could took place, and therefore, affidavit by way of evidence on behalf of the appellants/defendants was filed by the husband of Smt. Poonam, namely Sh. Shyam Sunder, appellant no.1 herein and who was examined as DW-1. Though the affidavit by way of evidence filed by Sh. Shyam Sunder, husband of Smt. Poonam was on the lines as per the written statement, however in the cross-examination Sh. Shyam Sunder he admitted that his signatures do appear as a witness on the Agreement to Sell dated 4.12.2007. Even with respect to signatures of his wife, Sh. Shyam Sunder