A plaintiff must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform a contract to obtain specific performance, and a court's discretion to grant such relief considers fairness and equity, not merely technical breaches.

JUDGMENT :

C. Pratheep Kumar, J.

The defendant in OS No.58 of 2009 on the file of the Principle Sub Court, Kollam, is the appellant. (For the purpose of convenience the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court).

2. The plaintiff filed the above suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale entered into with the defendant on 25.8.2008. As per the above agreement (Exhibit A1), the defendant agreed to sell 14 cents of property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.2,13,500/- at the rate of Rs.15,250/- per cent. The period of agreement was three months. On the date of agreement itself, the plaintiff advanced a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the defendant. Thereafter, as demanded by the defendant, on 4.10.2005 the plaintiff advanced another Rs.75,000/- towards part of the sale consideration. The period of three months expired on 25.11.2008. According to the plaintiff, on 20.11.2008, she visited the defendant in her residence and during the negotiation the defendant extended the period of agreement by 15 days orally, up to 10.12.2008. Since there was no steps from the side of the defendant for performance of the agreement, on 5.12.2008, the plaintiff caused to issue Exhibit A2 lawyer's notice to the defendant, demanding to execute the sale deed in her favour after receiving the balance sale consideration. To the said notice, the defendant issued Exhibit A5 reply dated 29.12.2008 stating that since the period of agreement is over she is not liable to perform the contract. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement and that the sale deed could not be executed solely due to the default of the defendant.

3. In the written statement, the defendant admitted execution of Exhibit A1 sale agreement and receipt of a total sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. According to the defendant, she was ready and willing to perform the contract within the period stipulated therein and that the plaintiff was not at all ready and willing to perform her part. The defendant also denied the averment in the plaint that on 20.11.2008 the plaintiff visited the defendant and at the instance of the defendant, the period of the agreement was orally extended till 10.12.2008. She also contended that on 25.11.2008, on the last day of Exhibit A1 she was present in the Sub Registrar's Office, Ochira expecting the plaintiff to execute the sale deed and in spite of that the plaintiff did not turn up. Therefore, according to the defendant the contract could not be performed due to the default of the plaintiff and as such she prayed for dismissing the suit.

4. The trial court framed three issues. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PW1, PW2, DW1 and Exhibits A1 to A5, B1 and B2. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court decreed the suit for specific performance. Being aggrieved by the above judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant preferred this appeal raising various contentions.

5. Now the points that arise for consideration are the following:

1) Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, as claimed?

2) Whether the trial court has exercised the discretion under section 20 of the Specific Relief Act correctly?

3) Whether the impugned judgment