IMPORTANT POINT
In specific performance cases, plaintiffs must prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and time is often deemed essential unless explicitly stated otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This second appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC, is directed against the judgment dated 26.04.2010 and decree dated 29.04.2010, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Barpeta, in Title Appeal No. 13/2006.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment, dated 26.04.2010, and decree dated 29.04.2010, the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Barpeta had allowed the appeal preferred by the defendant/respondent and reversed the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta, in Title Suit No. 26/2004.

4. The background facts, leading to filing of this appeal, are briefly stated as under:

“The respondent herein approached the appellants to sell a plot of land described in the schedule with a standing house thereon and the appellants herein also agreed to purchase the said land and after negotiation between the parties, the price of the land was fixed at Rs.1,90,000/- and an agreement for sale was signed between the parties. And a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the respondent herein by the appellants herein on 30.07.2002. It was agreed between the parties that within a period of 4(four) months, the appellants herein will pay the balance consideration and the respondent by accepting the said amount and taking the departmental permission for sale will execute the registered sale deed. The appellants herein were always ready with the remaining consideration to purchase the suit land, but the respondent with one or other pretext delayed execution of the registered sale deed as per terms of the agreement and finally the appellants herein were ready with money on 27.11.2002 requesting the defendant to execute the registered sale deed, but the respondent did not turn up and thereafter, the appellants approached the respondent to execute the registered sale deed, but the respondent denied the same.

Being aggrieved, the appellants herein, as plaintiffs, had instituted a suit, being Title Suit No. 26/2004, against the respondent/defendant for specific performance of contract. The said title suit was decreed, vide judgment and decree dated 06.06.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta (‘trial Court’ for short). Against the said judgment and decree dated 06.06.2006, the respondent/defendant had preferred an appeal, being Title Appeal No. 13/2006, before the Court of learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Barpeta (‘first appellate Court’ for short). Thereafter, hearing both the parties and also considering the record, the learned first appellate Court had allowed the appeal, vide judgment, dated 26.04.2010, and decree dated 29.04.2010, and thereby had set aside the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2006, passed by the learned trial Court.”

5. Being aggrieved, the appellants have approached this Court by filing the present appeal on the following grounds:

(i) That, the learned first appellate Court erred in law as well as in fact in allowing the appeal preferred by the defendant/respondent.

(ii) That, the learned first appellate Court ought to have considered the instant suit for specific performance of contract which was within time and as such, coming to the Court and filing of the suit on 18.06.2004, i.e. 1½ years of the execution of the agreement cannot be a ground for rejection of the execution of sale deed through Court.

(iii) That, the learned first appellate Court ought to have considered the statement of PW-3, who in his evidence stated that he never met the defendant No. 1 after execution of the agreement for sale and the same was made when a suggestion was put to him.

(iv) That, the learned first appellate Court ought to have considered that the evidence of PW-3 cannot be brushed aside as his evidence as a whole proved the relevant facts in issue and his evidence indicates that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to execute the sale deed