IMPORTANT POINT
Specific performance requires proof of contract execution and plaintiff's readiness to fulfill obligations, with courts exercising discretion based on evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The defendant in OS No. 417 of 2011, on the files of the Principal Subordinate Court, Irinjalakuda, who is aggrieved by the decree and judgment in the above suit, has filed this appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in this suit.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant and respondent/plaintiff in detail. Perused the pleadings and evidence including the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the defendant.

3. For effective and easy discussion, the parties in this appeal will be referred to as ‘plaintiff’, and ‘defendant’ hereafter.

4. According to the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to sell the plaint schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 4 lakh to the defendant. Accordingly, a written agreement was executed between them on 05.06.2010 and Rs. 3,60,000/- was paid as advance sale consideration. That apart, possession of the property also was handed over to the plaintiff in terms of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the TP Act'). Even though the plaintiff has been ready and willing to execute the sale deed by paying the remaining sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-, the defendant failed to do so. Consequently, a lawyer’s notice demanding execution of the sale deed was issued on 30.06.2011. Since the demand made in the notice was not heeded, the present suit seeking performance of the agreement has been filed.

5. Defendant entered appearance and filed written statement. It was contended that she neither executed any agreement nor received Rs.3,60,000/- as alleged. According to the defendant, she borrowed Rs. 4 lakh from the plaintiff on 17.03.2010, with an undertaking to repay the amount with interest @ 48% per annum. Accordingly, she executed a confidence sale (Viswasa Theeru) in respect of 47 cents of the property. Apart from that, she also gave blank stamp papers and two printed forms to the plaintiff. The further contention is that the defendant had paid interest @ 16,000/- per month regularly initially. But thereafter she could not pay the same since she had been laid up.

6. On scrutiny of the pleadings as above, the trial court raised necessary issues and tried the case. PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A4 marked on the side of the plaintiff. DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts. B1 to B8 were marked. After considering the evidence and the arguments presented by both parties, the trial court found that Ext. A1 sale agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. Ultimately, in this case, where the property had been transferred after the payment of a significant portion of the agreed sale consideration, the court granted the discretionary relief of specific performance.

7. According to the learned counsel for the defendant, the defendant specifically denied the execution of Ext. A1 sale agreement, though she admitted receipt of Rs.4 lakh as a loan, with an undertaking to repay the amount along with interest @ 48% per annum. It is also pointed out that the property would fetch a higher value than stated in the agreement, which would support the defendant's case and raise doubts regarding the execution of Ext. A1 sale agreement. According to the learned counsel for the defendant, when the defendant was in need for money in connection with her treatment, she was forced to obtain money from the plaintiff after executing ‘confidence sale’ and the property never intended to be sold. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant that, in order to succeed a suit for specific performance on the basis of contract of sale, the vendee shall plead and prove his readiness and willingness to perform the essentials of the terms of the contract, and otherwise such relief could not be granted. In this connection, the learned counsel placed the decision of this Court reported in 2024 KHC 71 Manicka Sachindranath v. Sankunni. In paragraph N