IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and that reasonable delays in filing suit do not automatically preclude relief under the Specific Relief Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Devashis Baruah, J.)

Heard Mr. BD Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. S Kanungoe, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code), challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2018 passed in Title Appeal No.11/2014 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Kamrup at Amingaon whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2009 passed by the learned Munsiff No.4 Kamrup at Guwahati in Title Suit No.124/2008.

3. This Court vide an order dated 26.11.2018 admitted the second appeal by formulating a substantial question of law which reads as under:

“Whether while reversing the finding of the trial court, the first appellate court had applied its discretion in decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract properly on the face of the evidence on record?”

4. The question as to whether the said substantial question of law is involved in the instant appeal, this Court finds it relevant to refer briefly to the facts which led to the filing of the instant appeal.

5. The respondent herein had filed a suit before the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1 Kamrup(M) at Guwahati which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.124/2008. The reason for filing the suit was that the plaintiff had entered into a registered agreement for sale with the defendant and his mother one Sumitra Rajbongshi for purchase of a plot of land measuring 1 katha 5 lechas at a total consideration of Rs.1,90,000/-. This agreement was entered into on 19.10.2006. Out of the total consideration, an amount of Rs.80,000/-was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant and his mother. It was a stipulation in the said agreement that the sale proceedings would be completed within 35 days on payment of the cash of the outstanding balance. Subsequent thereto, a notice was issued by the plaintiff on 17.11.2006, through his counsel to execute the sale deed and delivered possession of 1 katha 5 lechas of land. It was averred in the plaint that the said notice was duly received by the defendant. However, the defendant and his mother did not immediately execute the deed of sale and it was averred in the plaint that on 04.04.2007, 07.08.2007 and 25.10.2007, the plaintiff requested to complete the terms and conditions of the contract by receiving the remaining consideration. The mother of the defendant, however, performed her part of the agreement by executing a deed of sale for 12.5 lechas by a registered sale deed No.374/2007 dated 01.12.2007 on receipt of Rs.60,000/-as full and final consideration and delivered possession to the plaintiff to the extent of the land sold. However, the defendant did not execute the deed of sale, for which, the suit was filed seeking specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 19.10.2006 and for other reliefs. It is relevant to mention that as the mother of the defendant had sold half of the land, the suit was confined only to 12.5 lechas of land.

6. The defendant pursuant to receipt of the summons appeared and filed the written statement. There was neither any denial to the execution of the agreement for sale dated 19.10.2006 by the defendant, nor to the receipt of the part consideration. It was the specific stand of the defendant that the plaintiff did not honour his promise to pay the balance amount within the time stipulated, for which, the defendant could not purchase an alternative plot of land, which he was looking for.

7. Based on the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed as many as six issues. The Issue No.4 relates to as to whether the plaintiff entered into a valid and enforceable contract vide deed No.285/2006 dated 19.10.2006 with the defendant in respect of the suit land and the issue No.5 relates to as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of contract of sale as prayed f