IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the existence of an agreement and the plaintiff's readiness to perform the contract in a specific performance case.

JUDGMENT :

This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”) challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2009 passed in Title Appeal No.22/2007 by the learned Civil Judge Hailakandi (for short “First Appellate Court”) whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2007 in Title Suit No.102/06 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hailakandi (for short “the Trial Court”) was affirmed.

2. It appears from the records that this Court vide an order dated 04.10.2010 had admitted the instant appeal by formulating a substantial question of law. The said substantial question of law is reproduced herein under:

“1. Whether the learned first appellate Court is justified in upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court without recording any finding relating to ready and willingness of the plaintiff to execute his part of the contract?”

3. In addition to that, on 07.12.2023, this Court had framed an additional substantial question of law which is also reproduced herein under:

“Whether the judgment of the appellate court is bad in law for non-compliance of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure?”

4. The question arises in the instant Appeal is as to whether the said substantial questions of law so formulated by this Court are involved in the instant appeal. For the said purpose, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal.

5. The Respondent herein as Plaintiff had instituted a suit which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.27/2004 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailakandi seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 07.02.2003 and other consequential reliefs as mandated under law. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendants had entered into the agreement dated 07.02.2003 for sale of the suit land at a total consideration of Rs.1,20,000/-out of which an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-was paid at the time of entering into the agreement and the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/-was to be paid at the time of execution of the registered Deed of Sale. It was further mentioned that it was agreed that the Deed of Sale was required to be executed within 06.08.2004. The plaintiff thereupon insisted the defendants to obtain the necessary No Objection Certificate and noticing that the defendants were not taking appropriate steps, a legal notice was issued on 28.04.2004 asking the defendants to obtain the No Objection Certificate within 10.05.2004 and thereupon appear before the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Hailakandi along with the No Objection Certificate on 11.05.2004 at 10 A.M. and also to appear before one Shri Babul Ghosh, a deed writer in the Sub-Registrar Office and to receive the remaining Rs.20,000/-and register the deed of sale and also to hand over the possession of the suit land on the next date. The defendants did not obtain the No Objection Certificate but on the other hand, through their counsel, one Mr. Nurul Haque Majumder sent a reply dated 10.05.2004 stating that they did not execute the agreement and the same was fraudulent. It is under such circumstances, the suit was filed seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 07.02.2003 and for other consequential reliefs.

6. The Defendants thereupon filed their written statement denying that any agreement dated 07.02.2003 was executed by and between the plaintiff and the Defendants. It was alleged that the agreement dated 07.02.2003 was prepared fraudulently for which the question of granting specific performance did not arise.

7. On the basis of the above, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 4 (four) issues initially and thereupon on 19.11.2005 framed another additional issue as to whether the Bainanama dated 07.02.2003 was binding upon the Defendant Nos. 4 to 6. However, the name of the Defendants Nos. 4 to 6 were struck off and accordingly, the additional